Print Friendly, PDF & Email

2) Do you agree that the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act could prove catastrophic for fundamental rights? Is sacrificing liberty for national security justified? Discuss and provide for your opinion.(250 words)

Topic:  Government policies and interventions for development in various sectors and issues arising out of their design and implementation. Security challenges and their management in border areas; linkages of organized crime with terrorism.

2) Do you agree that the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act could prove catastrophic for fundamental rights? Is sacrificing liberty for national security justified? Discuss and provide for your opinion.(250 words)

The hindu

Why this question:

In Parliament this month, former Union Minister P. Chidambaram questioned the need for certain amendments to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967. The Bill empowers the Central government to name any individual a terrorist if it believes him or her to be so.

Key demand of the question:

The answer must debate over the cost of declaring individuals terrorist in the UPA act, in what way it violates fundamental rights.

Directive:

DiscussThis is an all-encompassing directive – you have to debate on paper by going through the details of the issues concerned by examining each one of them. You have to give reasons for both for and against arguments.

Structure of the answer:

Introduction: 

Describe the recent amendments made to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act.

Body:

The answer must first bring out the key changes that were made recently by the parliament.

Explain in what way these changes pose questions on the fundamental rights at the price of national security.

Take hints from the article and explain both pros and cons of such a move.

Conclusion:

Conclude by suggesting what needs to be done.

CategoriesINSIGHTS