2. THE ARREST OF MR. MAX, MR. ROGERS, MS. NATASHA & MR.

ZEMO MADE UNDER THE

UAPA, 1967 IS ARBITRARY AND VIOLATES THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.

The counsel on behalf of appellants most humbly submits that the arrest made by the police under UAPA, 1967 is
absolutely arbitrary and infringes their fundamental rights. There is no substantial evidence for their arrest. The
UAPA has been misused without any restriction and violated the fundamental rights of appellants by alleging
scurrilous charges and arresting arbitrary.

2.1 ARREST OF MR. MAX

The arrest of Mr. Max under section 39(2) was completely unjustified and infringed his fundamental rights under article
14, 19(1) (a) and 21.
● SECTION 39 OF UAPA, 1967 deals with offence relating to support given to a terrorist organisation.

(1) A person commits the offence relating to support given to a terrorist organisation,—
(a) Who, with intention to further the activity of a terrorist organisation,—
(i) Invites support for the terrorist organization; an
(ii) The support is not or is not restricted to provide money or other property within the meaning of section 40; or
(b) Who, with intention to further the activity of a terrorist organisation, arranges, manages or assists in arranging or
managing a meeting which he knows is—
(i) To support the terrorist organization; or
(ii) to further the activity of the terrorist organization; or
(iii) to be addressed by a person who associates or professes to be associated with the terrorist organisation; or
(c) who, with intention to further the activity of a terrorist organisation, addresses a meeting for the purpose of
encouraging support for the terrorist organisation or to further its activity.
(2) A person, who commits the offence relating to support given to a terrorist organisation under sub-
section (1) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or with fine, or with both.

In the present case, Mr. Max was active in diverse field and received awards for literature, drama, publication of
papers and his work in the field of journalism. He had taken active part in the formation of “Illimunati” organization.
Mr. Max was arrested under section 39(2) of UAPA, 1967 based on few documents, few CD’s, one CPU, and
printed literature on communist ideology were recovered by the police from the house of Mr. Max, to link his
association with the banned organization “Illuminati” and it was alleged by the police that the same was used by him
to incite other people to join the organization and further it’s motives. However, upon investigation, it was found
that Mr. Max has only wrote and spread about the ideology inculcated in the said documents.
In the Elbrandt v. Russell1 case, justice douglas observed that “Those who join an organization but do not share its
unlawful purposes and who do not participate in its unlawful activities surely pose no threat. This act threatens the
cherished freedom of association protected by the first amendment, made applicable to the states by the fourteenth
amendment. A law which applies to membership without the ‘specific intent’ to further the illegal aims of the
organization infringes unnecessarily on protected freedoms. It rests on the doctrine of ‘guilt by association’ which
has no place here.”

1 Elfbrandt v. Russell 384 US 17(1966) (As Discussed in Indra Das v. State of Assam, (2011) 3 SCC 380)
In the case of arup bhuyan2, SC held that “mere membership of a banned organisation will not make a person a
criminal unless he resorts to violence or incites people to violence or creates public disorder by violence or
incitement to violence.”
the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Vishvanath @ Vishnu Varadarajan Aaiyar v. State of Gujarat, wherein it
was observed that seizure of incriminating material by itself in absence of any contact or connection with banned
terrorist outfit cannot be said to be an activity prohibited by any law. It was further observed that possession of such
material without there being any overt act or actual execution of such ideas by itself would not form or constitute
any offence.
In the case of Ms. Jyoti Babasaheb v. State of Maharashtra, It was held that mere possession of such literature,
without actual execution of the ideas contained therein, would not amount to any offence."
Moreover, the membership of an organization, if at all, did not impute a member with a same goals as those of the
organization
In Chhatradhar Mahato & Ors vs State Of West Bengal held that it will be very unsafe indeed to convict the
appellants on the basis of recovery of offensive literature from them. As such, they are entitled to benefit of doubt
and hence, are acquitted from all charges.
THAT arrested of bucky rogers under section 13, 16 & 18 of UAPA, 1967 is arbitarry and unjustified.
Mr. Bucky Rogers, a Scholar and a human rights activist is a renowned writer and writes journals and articles. He
has advocated for the political rights and social freedom of the so-called lower caste people of the country. He is also
a Civil Rights Activist.
In Clarence Brandenburg Vs. State of Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) the U.S. Supreme Court went further and held that
mere "advocacy or teaching the duty, necessity, or propriety" of violence as a means of accomplishing political or
industrial reform, or publishing or circulating or displaying any book or paper containing such advocacy, or
justifying the commission of violent acts with intent to exemplify, spread or advocate the propriety of the doctrines
of criminal syndicalism, or to voluntarily assemble with a group formed "to teach or advocate the doctrines of
criminal syndicalism" is not per se illegal.
Merely meeting or association of the accused would by itself not be sufficient to infer the existence of criminal
conspiracy, thus mere evidence of the same is not enough to bring home the offence of criminal conspiracy.
Ms. Natasha is a 27 years old Indian Student activist. She organized various rallies and protests to keep the healthy
opposition active in the upfront. She was charged under the section 13 read with section 2 (b) of UAPA, 1967 along
with committing terrorist act under Section 16.
The fundamental freedom under Article 19(1)(a) can be reasonably restricted only for the purposes mentioned in
Articles 19(2) and the restriction must be justified on the anvil of necessity and not the quicks and of convenience or
expediency. Open criticism of Government policies and operations is not a ground for restricting expression. We
must practice tolerance to the views of others. Intolerance is as much dangerous to democracy as to the person
himself.
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, Bhagwati J., observed that: "Democracy is based essentially on free debate and
open discussion, for that is the only corrective of Government action in a democratic set up. If democracy means
govern- ment of the people by the people. it is obvious that every citizen must be entitled to participate in the
democratic process and in order to enable him to intelligently exercise his right of making a choice, free and general
discussion of public matters is absolutely essential."
2
In Romesh Thappar v. State Of Madras (AIR 1950 SC 124), while quoting U.S. SUPREME COURTS view in
Lovell v. City Of Griffin (1937) 303 U.S. 404, the apex court held that the freedom of speech and expression,
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a), means right to speak and to express ones opinions by word of mouth, writing,
printing, pictures or in any other manner. It is to express ones convictions and opinions or ideas freely, through any
communicational medium or visible representation, such as gestures, signs and the like. This freedom is essential for
the proper functioning of the democratic process.