NEW DELHI, July 26 (Live Law): The Supreme Court Senior Advocate was speaking at a webinar by CJAR- "Discussion On DEMOCRACY, DISSENT AND DRACONIAN LAW- Should UAPA & Sedition Have A Place In Our Statute Books?"

"These laws cannot be permissible because they are so vague. The definition of 'terrorist act' in section 15 of the UAPA is so vague that it is susceptible to misuse. The hallmark of legislation is that it should be definite and incapable of misinterpretation. Here, it is so vague that it is misinterpreted. A person who says a cow's urine is not good for COVID is also put behind bars", commented the retired judge.

Quipping in a lighter vein that the term "chronology" is very popular these days (in context of its usage by Union Home Minister Amit Shah), Justice Prakash indicated how from the UN Human Rights Declaration of 1948, to the Indian Constitution, to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1976, to now the principles of the presumption of innocence and protection against self-incrimination, being the right to silence, have been sustained. "The presumption of innocence must not be dislodged. Presumption of innocence, right to silence and burden of proof on prosecution- these are principles of criminal jurisprudence which we must understand in the case of the UAPA. And the fourth principle is that the higher the punishment, the greater the burden of the prosecution", she explained.