UAPA: Section 2(1)(o) which defines ‘unlawful activity’ challenged before Supreme Court for being vague Section 2(1)(o) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) which defines ‘unlawful activity’ has been challenged before the Supreme Court of India. The petitioners have contended that the definition of ‘unlawful activity’ prohibits innocuous speech by threat of punishment. Further it also contended that the definition of ‘unlawful activity’ is vague and it fails to define criminal offence with sufficient definiteness. Terms like “sovereignty and territorial integrity of India” and “disaffection against India” used in the Section are very broad, the petitioners submitted. Moreover, due to the absolute bar on anticipatory bail under Section 43D(4) of the Act and the impossibility of securing bail under Section 43D(5) of the Act, Section 2(1)(o) produces a chilling effect on freedom of speech and expression, the plea said. It is, therefore, a provision that forces people to self-censor their views because of fear of criminal action and therefore violates freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India, the petitioners contended. With a team of Law experts, Reddy & amp; Reddy Law Firm has extensive experience and involvement in legal disputes.