Unlawful Association

What is Unlawful Associations

Associations or organisations declared by the Union Government or State Governments as unlawful associations or unlawful organisations are entities that the government considers to be involved in activities prejudicial to public order or national security.

The right to form associations under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India is subject to “reasonable restrictions” under Article 19(4) of the Constitution of India in the interests of sovereignty, integrity, public order, and morality. In practice, this area of law has been shaped not only by constitutional limits but also by a wide framework of national and state legislations. Instruments such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) at the central level and Criminal Law Amendment (CLA) of 1908 along with various Public Security Acts (PSAs) at the state level have extended these restrictions by providing mechanisms to declare and proscribe entities as unlawful. Some state PSAs use the term “unlawful organisation” in place of or alongside “unlawful association,” effectively aligning the two concepts for regulatory and enforcement purposes.

Historical Development

Historically, the term “unlawful association” was first introduced in Indian law by the Criminal Law Amendment Act (CLA) of 1908. This Act along with the Unlawful Association Ordinance, 1932 empowered the British colonial authorities to prohibit associations deemed dangerous to public peace or supportive of revolutionary activities. It was under the definition of “unlawful association” contained in this Act that the British Raj sought to suppress the Indian independence movement by banning several organizations that challenged colonial rule. The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908 (CLA) was a proscription law which applied to associations that ‘interfered, or had as their object ‘the interference, with the administration of law or the maintenance of public order, or which constituted a danger to public peace’. This historical foundation has influenced the development of contemporary laws dealing with unlawful associations or organisations in India.

Official Definition of Unlawful Association

Unlawful Association as defined in Legislation

This power to declare as Unlawful Association is exercised by the Union Government in accordance with Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and by the state governments in accordance with Criminal Law Amendment Act (CLA) of 1908. States like Telangana, Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh, and Maharashtra have also enacted their respective public safety acts (PSAs) which operate in addition to Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908 (CLA) to declare unlawful associations and unlawful organisation, as the case may be. Under the UAPA and state level PSAs, the government effectively retain the power to proscribe any group of individuals, regardless of any organizational structure, and enables the government to connect people who haven't formed an organisation by assigning them a common objective that is vague and unsupported by any hard evidence. Entities can be banned if they are found to be associated with the broad and ambiguously defined category of ‘unlawful activity’ under these legislations.

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)

Section 2(p) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967 defines "unlawful association" as any group that has the objective of engaging in unlawful activities, or encourages or helps others to engage in such activities, or whose members are involved in such activities; or has the objective of promoting activities punishable under sections 153A or 153B of the Indian Penal Code, or encourages or helps others to engage in such activities, or whose members are involved in such activities.

An association may be deemed unlawful if its objectives involve such "unlawful activities" or if it promotes or encourages them. Under Section 2(o) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967 , unlawful activity includes any action (such as speech or communication) that supports claims for secession or that generally "disclaims, questions, disrupts, or intends to disrupt the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India." It also includes actions intended to "cause disaffection against India".

When an association is declared unlawful, any person who remains a member of such an association, participates in its meetings, provides, receives, or solicits contributions for its purposes, or aids its activities in any mannershall face imprisonment of up to two years and may also be fined. Anyone assisting the unlawful activities of an association declared unlawful after the declaration has come into effect can face imprisonment of up to five years, a fine, or both. Any person who remains a member of the association, voluntarily acts to support or promote its objectives, and is in possession of unlicensed firearms, explosives, or other items capable of causing mass destruction, or commits acts that result in death, severe injury, or significant property damage, shall face death or life imprisonment along with a fine. For other acts, imprisonment of at least five years, up to life imprisonment, and a fine will be imposed.

Legal Provisions Relating to Unlawful Association

Declaration and Notification

Section 3 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967 outlines the procedures for declaring an association as unlawful. If the Central Government is of the view that an association is or has become unlawful, it may declare the association unlawful by issuing a notification in the Official Gazette. The notification must specify the reasons for the declaration and any other details the Central Government deems necessary, and it is not required to disclose any information it considers against the public interest.

The notification will not take effect until the Tribunal confirms the declaration through an order under Section 4, and the order is published in the Official Gazette. However, if the government believes that urgent action is necessary, it can declare the association unlawful immediately, with written reasons provided. In this case, the notification will take effect from the date of publication in the Official Gazette, subject to any subsequent orders under Section 4. In addition to being published in the Official Gazette, the notification must also appear in at least one daily newspaper circulating in the State where the association’s principal office, if any, is located. The notification must also be served to the association in a manner the Central Government deems appropriate, including one or more of the following methods:

• posting a copy of the notification on a visible part of the association’s office;
• serving a copy to the principal office-bearers, if possible;
• announcing the notification by loudspeaker or drum in areas where the association operates;
• or by any other method as prescribed.

Confirmation by the tribunal

To determine whether there is sufficient cause for declaring an unlawful association, the Central Government must refer the notification to the Tribunal within 30 days of its publication. The Tribunal will issue a written notice to the affected association within 30 days from the service of the notice, asking why it should not be declared unlawful. If a response is given, the Tribunal will conduct an inquiry after reviewing it. It may seek additional information from the Central Government or the association's representatives. After the inquiry, the Tribunal will decide whether sufficient cause exists to declare the association unlawful. The order confirming or canceling the notification will be issued within 6 months and published in the Official Gazette. The notification will remain in effect for a period of 5 years, and the Central Government can cancel it at any time.

Other Powers of Central Government

The Central Government can take action if it believes that any person has custody of money, securities, or credits being used or intended for the unlawful association, after conducting an inquiry. The government can issue a written order prohibiting the person from handling or dealing with such funds in any way, including those that come into their custody after the order. This can only be done in accordance with written instructions from the government, and a copy of the order will be delivered to the person.

The government can authorize a gazetted officer to investigate the matter. The officer can enter the premises, inspect records, search for funds or securities, and ask questions about financial dealings suspected of being used for the unlawful association, with the prohibitory order serving as a warrant. The order will be served in the same manner as a summons.

The Central Government can also issue a notification to identify any place it believes is being used for the unlawful activities of an association. Once the notification is issued, the District Magistrate or an authorized officer must prepare a list of all movable property found at the notified place, except for items such as clothing, cooking utensils, beds, tools, animals, and food, which are considered trivial. The District Magistrate can issue orders to:

• Prevent anyone from using items if they believe the items might be used for unlawful activities of the association.
• Prohibit anyone who is not a resident from entering the place without permission, with certain exceptions. If permission is granted, they must follow conduct rules set by the District Magistrate.

Any police officer of at least sub-inspector rank, or another authorized person, can search anyone entering or present in the notified place. However, women can only be searched by female officers. If someone violates the order, they can be removed by an officer or another authorized person, in addition to facing any other legal action. Anyone who disagrees with the notification or an order issued under sub-sections (3) or (4) can apply to the District Judge within 30 days. They may request the court to declare that the place was not used for unlawful purposes or to overturn the order. The court will consider arguments from both sides and make a decision.

Subject to any rules made under this Act, the Tribunal, while conducting an inquiry under Section 4(3), and the Court of the District Judge, when handling an application under Section 7(4) or Section 8(8), shall follow the procedure outlined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as much as possible. The decisions made by the Tribunal or the District Judge’s Court will be final.

If a person who has been served with a prohibitory order regarding funds, securities, or credits deals with them in violation of the order, they can be punished with imprisonment of up to three years, a fine, or both. Additionally, the court may impose an extra fine equal to the value of the funds or securities involved in the violation. Anyone who uses an item in violation of a prohibitory order can be punished with imprisonment of up to one year and a fine. Additionally, anyone who knowingly enters or attempts to enter a notified place in violation of an order can face imprisonment of up to one year and a fine.

This section does not apply to treaties, agreements, or negotiations authorized by the Government of India with other countries. Regardless of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, offenses under this Act are deemed cognizable, allowing the police to take action without prior approval.

State-Level Legislations

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908

The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908 does not define ‘unlawful activity’. Instead, it defines an unlawful association as an association which either encourages or aids the commission of acts of violence or intimidation, or whose members habitually commit such acts, or which has been declared to be unlawful by the State Government if, in its opinion, the association interferes or has as its object interference with the administration of the law, with the maintenance of law and order, or constitutes a danger to the public peace. Here, Association means any combination or body of persons, whether the same be known by any distinctive name or not.

The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908 provides for 2 classes of offence-

• General membership or support: Being a member, attending meetings, contributing funds, soliciting contributions, or otherwise assisting such an association is punishable with imprisonment up to six months, or fine, or both. (Cognizable and Non-Bailable)
• Management or promotion: Managing, assisting in management, or promoting meetings of an unlawful association is punishable with imprisonment up to three years, or fine, or both.

The difference, however, is that the central legislation, UAPA, in addition to providing the power to ban associations, also defined and penalised ‘unlawful activity’, hence its scope went beyond proscription, to create new categories of criminal offences. The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908 is a proscription law which applied to associations that ‘interfered, or had as their object ‘the interference, with the administration of law or the maintenance of public order, or which constituted a danger to public peace’

State level Public Safety Acts

The framework of the Public Safety Acts (PSAs) enacted across states like Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh, and Maharashtra demonstrates a consistent attempt to criminalise not merely individual acts of disorder but collective conduct that draws its strength from associations or organisations classified as unlawful.

Under the Andhra Pradesh and Telangana Public Safety Act, the term unlawful association is defined to include any association which directly or indirectly, through any device or medium, indulges in, abets, assists, encourages, or supports unlawful activity. State level PSAs of Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and Maharashtra use the nomenclature of unlawful organisation instead of unlawful association, but the substance of the definition remains the same. The term organisation or association as provide in respective state public safety law, broadly refer to any combination, group, or body of persons, whether formally registered or not, and regardless of whether it operates under a written constitution or identifiable name.

A key feature of these legislations is that although the definition of unlawful activity is constructed with reference to acts committed by individuals, the penal consequences are primarily activated when such activities are undertaken through, or on behalf of, an unlawful association. In this way, the State-level PSAs extend liability to both collective bodies and those who associate with or support them.

Classification of Offences and Penalties

The Acts of Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and Madhya Pradesh classify offences in two categories.

1. The first relates to any person who is a member of an unlawful association, or takes part in meetings or activities of any such association, or contributes or receives or solicits any contribution for the purpose of any such association. Such conduct is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
2. The second category attaches liability to whoever manages or assists in the management of an unlawful association, or promotes or assists in promoting a meeting of any such association or of any members thereof, or in any way assists, abets or aids the unlawful activities of any such association through whatever manner or whatever medium or device. This offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

The Chhattisgarh Public Safety Act provides a fourfold classification of offences.

1. Firstly, whoever is a member of an unlawful organisation or takes part in meetings or activities of any such organisation, or contributes or receives or solicits any contribution for its purposes, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
2. Secondly, whoever, not being a member of an unlawful organisation, contributes or receives or solicits any contribution or aid for such organisation, or harbours any member thereof, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine.
3. Thirdly, whoever manages or assists in the management of an unlawful organisation, or promotes or assists in promoting a meeting of any such organisation or any member thereof, or in any way indulges in any unlawful activity of such organisation in any manner or through whatever medium or device, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
4. Fourthly, whoever commits or abets or attempts to commit, or plans to commit, any unlawful activity in any specified area shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Further, investigation into offences under the first and second categories cannot commence without the prior permission of the Superintendent of Police of the district concerned.

Definition of Unlawful Activity

Under the Public Safety Acts of Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and Madhya Pradesh, unlawful activity, in relation to an individual or association, means any activity which constitutes a danger or menace to public order, peace, and tranquility; or which has interfered or tends to interfere with the maintenance of public order; or which interferes or tends to interfere with the administration of law or its established institutions and personnel; or of indulging in or propagating acts of violence, terrorism, vandalism or other acts generating fear and apprehension in the public, or indulging in or encouraging the use of firearms, explosives, or other devices, or disrupting communication by rail or road; or of encouraging or preaching disobedience to established law and its institutions; or of collecting money or goods forcibly to carry out any of the said unlawful activities.

Extended Definition under the Chhattisgarh Act

The Chhattisgarh Public Safety Act, 2005, reflecting the contemporaneous resurrection of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, as amended in 2004, expanded the definition of unlawful activity by incorporating part of the definition of terrorist act therein. Accordingly, unlawful activity also includes an act designed to overawe, by criminal force or show of criminal force or otherwise, any public servant of the State Government or Central Government in the exercise of the lawful powers of such public servant, as well as acts directed against the Forces.

Modifications under the Maharashtra Public Safety Act

The Maharashtra Public Safety Act substantially adopts the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Act but introduces material deviations. It removes the requirement that the collection of money or goods in support of an unlawful activity must be done by force, thereby enlarging the scope of criminalization to include even voluntary or non-coercive contributions. It also omits the specific reference to “terrorism” from the enumeration of violent activities that constitute unlawful activity, while retaining other elements such as violence, intimidation, and disruption.

Unlawful Association as Defined in International Instrument(s)

ICCPR

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) was adopted and made available for signature, ratification, and accession through General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI) on December 16, 1966. However, it took an additional decade for the required 35 States to ratify the covenant, allowing it to officially come into effect on March 23, 1976, as per Article 49.

The ICCPR, along with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), expands upon the rights outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Together, the Universal Declaration and these two Covenants constitute the International Bill of Human Rights.

Article 22 of the ICCPR provides that every individual has the right to associate freely with others, including the freedom to establish and join trade unions to safeguard their interests. Restrictions on this right are permissible only if they are prescribed by law and deemed necessary in a democratic society to protect national security, public safety, public order, public health or morals, or the rights and freedoms of others. This provision does not preclude lawful limitations on the exercise of this right by members of the armed forces and police.

Unlawful Associations in official government report

Law Commission Report

The 43rd Law Commission Report on Offences against the National Security defines "Unlawful association" means any association which has for its object any unlawful activity, or which encourages or aids persons to undertake any unlawful activity, or of which the members undertake such activity". This covers three types of associations, first, associations whose very object is the commission of an unlawful activity, secondly, associations which encourage or aid persons, whether members or not, to undertake any unlawful activity, and thirdly, associations whose members undertake such activity, whether or not the object of the association is the commission of such acts. The three classes are not mutually exclusive and there could be over-lapping.

Though the provisions of the Act infringe the fundamental rights guaranteed in sub-clauses (a) and (c) of clause (1) of Article 19, nevertheless they are saved because they are "reasonable restrictions" within the meaning of clauses (2) and (4) of that Article. They are directly relatable to the prevention of injury to the sovereignty and integrity of India.

A doubt may, however, be entertained as to whether the wide definition of "unlawful activity" may unreasonably restrict even the honest expression of opinion by a person for the cession of a portion of Indian territory or giving of support to such an opinion without incitement to violence. There are, however, two considerations which weigh with us in not suggesting any amendment to clarify this doubt. First, the definition begins with the word 'action'. This requires something more positive than an academic speech. Hence the courts may be persuaded to construe the Act narrowly in the manner suggested by the Attorney-General in his evidence before the Joint Committee1; and secondly, it is unlikely that Government will consider it necessary to launch a prosecution for a purely academic expression of opinion. The question of a prosecution itself will, therefore, remain as academic as the opinion.

8.9. Scope of the Act to be widened.-

We propose that the scope of the Act should be widened to cover any association which has, for its object, a subversive activity, or which encourages or aids persons to undertake such activity. We recommend this change, as it is obvious that such subversive associations constitute as great a danger to national security, as the associations which are at present covered by the 1967 Act under the nondescript designation of "unlawful associations". The penal and prohibitory provisions contained in the 1967 Act in our opinion are urgently needed in respect of all subversive associations.

8.10. Subversive activity.-

For this purpose, the expression "subversive activity" will include not only activities which are "unlawful activities" under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (corresponding to what we are recommending to be included in 'disruptive activity'1 but also certain other acts designed at subverting the Government. Briefly, these are-

(a) waging war against the Government of India;

(b) preparing to wage war;

(c) conspiracies to overawe the Parliament, Government, etc.;

(d) preventing by force exercise of State authority in furtherance of inter-State disputes;

(e) disruptive activity;

(f) forming para-military groups;

(g) treasonable relations with foreign State or institution or organisation;

(h) sabotage.

Unlawful Association as Defined in Case Law(s)

V.G. Row v. State of Madras

In September 1949, the Government of Madras declared the Peoples’ Education Society (PES) an unlawful association under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908. The government alleged that PES supported the banned Communist Party in Madras, providing funding and engaging in propaganda on its behalf. It claimed that the PES aimed to disrupt the enforcement of law and order, posing a threat to public peace. V.G. Row, the Secretary of PES, challenged the validity of the 1908 Act in this case, arguing that it violated his constitutional right to freedom of association. The Supreme Court found the Act unconstitutional, emphasizing that the right to form associations or unions is expansive and any restriction on it must be subject to judicial scrutiny. The Court held that granting executive authority unchecked power to restrict this right without judicial review undermines its reasonableness.

Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam

The Arup Bhuyan decision reversed the precedent set in State of Kerala v. Raneef by criminalizing passive membership in unlawful organizations, even without evidence of active participation or support. Earlier rulings had established the "active membership" requirement for applying Section 10(a)(i) of the UAPA, asserting that punishing passive membership contravenes fundamental principles of criminal law. The Raneef judgment had deemed Section 10(a)(i) of the UAPA unconstitutional, as it infringed upon free speech (Article 19(1)(a)) and freedom of association (Article 19(1)(c)), and it interpreted the provision to necessitate proof of active involvement. However, in Arup Bhuyan, the Court rejected reliance on American legal precedents used in Raneef, arguing that they were incompatible with Indian jurisprudence. The ruling upheld punishment for passive membership under the UAPA.

the Court in Sri Indra Das v State of Assam, read down Section 10 of UAPA and Section 3(5) of TADA, both of which made mere membership of a banned organization, criminal. The Court held that a literal interpretation of these provisions would make them violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. This was in line with the previous decision in Arup Bhuyan’s case where the Court had 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’.

International Experience

Germany

Germany’s legal framework strictly regulates unlawful organisations, particularly those threatening the constitutional order, international understanding, or involved in terrorist activities. Under Section 85 of the German Criminal Code, it is a criminal offence to maintain or support the organisational structures of a banned party or its surrogate organisations. Ringleaders face imprisonment of up to five years, while active members or supporters can be penalised with up to three years.

Section 86 prohibits the dissemination, production, or distribution of propaganda materials from unconstitutional or terrorist organisations, including foreign entities aligned with such groups. This carries a punishment of up to three years’ imprisonment or a fine. The law defines “propaganda” narrowly, limited to content that opposes the free democratic basic order or threatens state or international security. Exceptions exist for acts serving public education, academic work, or historical reporting. Section 86a criminalises the use, display, or distribution of symbols associated with banned organisations, such as flags, insignia, or slogans, with similar penalties. The use of imitation symbols is also punishable.

United Kingdom

Under UK law, an organisation is considered unlawful or “proscribed” if it is listed in Schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000 or operates under the same name as a listed group. The Home Secretary can add a group to the list if they believe it is involved in terrorism, such as committing, preparing for, or promoting it. This includes any glorification or praise of terrorist acts. The law also allows banning of groups operating under different names that are essentially the same as banned organisations. Supporting or being a member of a proscribed group is a criminal offence.

Ministry of Home Affairs Website List

Unlawful Associations under Section 3 of UAPA Act

Research that engages with Unlawful Association

The Terror of Law: UAPA and the myth of National Security (CRDO

This report is not a strictly legal report which analyzes only the provisions of the law. It is an attempt at understanding how legislations like UAPA are part of a larger history of banning and criminalizing dissent. The political history of curtailment of rights and freedoms is also the context within which the provisions of the law are analyzed. The selected case studies draw upon the experiences of different organizations and their struggles with UAPA. The annexures offer a larger perspective of judgments and resolutions. The journey of this report has taken over eight months as collective labour is a time consuming process. The report has benefited from discussions with and the inputs of several lawyers, activists and other individuals.

Tenuous Legality: Tensions Within Anti-Terrorism Law in India

Manisha Sethi critically examines the evolution and impact of anti-terrorism legislation in India. The paper explores the tension between constitutional safeguards and the legal provisions of laws like TADA, POTA, and UAPA, highlighting how these laws challenge foundational legal principles. Sethi analyzes the philosophical and jurisprudential approaches of the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, in addressing accusations of unconstitutionality and the practical implications of these laws in undermining evidentiary norms. This work provides a nuanced perspective on the unresolved conflicts within India’s legal framework concerning anti-terrorism measures.

Dissent in a Democracy: Political Imprisonment under the UAPA in India (EPW Engage)

The article examines the historical evolution and misuse of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in India, highlighting its role in suppressing dissent and curbing fundamental rights. The UAPA has been disproportionately used to target marginalized communities, exacerbating social and political inequalities. The piece underscores the urgent need for reforms to protect democratic principles and prevent the abuse of state power, ensuring that dissent does not become a criminal act under the guise of national security.

Insecurtiy by Law -A critique of the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill in the Context of India’s Banning Regime (People’s Union for Democratic Rights)

The report critically examines the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill (MSPSB), 2025, arguing that it duplicates existing laws like the UAPA while expanding state powers to criminalize dissent. The Bill uses vague terms like “unlawful activity” to justify bans on organizations and individuals, enabling guilt by association and property seizures without sufficient judicial oversight. Tracing similar laws in states like Andhra Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, the report highlights a broader pattern of suppressing political resistance and curbing associational freedoms. It warns that the Bill reflects a shift from punishing violent acts to targeting ideologies, threatening the constitutional right to association under Article 19(1)(c).