The Supreme Court of India has signaled a more stringent stance on challenges against the constitutional validity of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The apex court, in a notable decision, stated that it would not entertain what it termed as "proxy litigation" and would only consider challenges brought forth by those personally aggrieved by the anti-terrorism law.

A bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal made it clear that for a petitioner to challenge the vires of UAPA, there must be a direct violation of their rights, and they must be personally impacted by the provisions in question. This move by the court aims to curb the practice of third-party entities or individuals initiating legal proceedings on behalf of others who may not want to come forward.

Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, representing some of the petitioners, argued that public-spirited individuals and organizations should have the right to file public interest litigations challenging the constitutionality of a law that infringes upon fundamental rights. However, Justice Mithal raised concerns about the potential for such actions to be deemed as "proxy litigation."

The court's refusal to entertain Ahmadi further in the matter and its call for the directly aggrieved petitioners to present their case underscore its commitment to ensuring a genuine connection between the petitioner and the legal challenge.

During the proceedings, advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing three civil society members, including a journalist, highlighted that they were booked under the UAPA by the Tripura Police in 2021 over their social media posts on riots in the state. The counsel for the Tripura government informed the court that the petitioners had already been granted protection from arrest by the Supreme Court but had chosen to pursue their petition challenging the UAPA provisions.

Justice Trivedi, after reviewing the court's previous orders and the Tripura government's counter-affidavit, sought Bhushan's opinion on whether they intended to move the high court for quashing the FIR or continue with their petition challenging the vires of the law in the Supreme Court. Bhushan requested time to consult with his clients, leading to the bench postponing the matter for further hearing.

This development comes as part of a larger legal landscape, with the Supreme Court considering a batch of 11 petitions challenging various provisions of the UAPA, including a petition filed by former JNU student Umar Khalid. The court's emphasis on the direct impact on the petitioner signals a more cautious approach in assessing challenges against anti-terrorism laws and reinforces the need for a clear connection between the legal challenger and the alleged violation of rights.