Union home minister Amit Shah on Friday sought to allay fears expressed by Opposition parties over the possible misuse of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act after its amendment and clarified that the contentious provision of declaring a person a terrorist would generally be used after questioning the accused.

The Rajya Sabha passed the UAPA amendment bill with the support of the Congress. While 147 members supported the bill, 42 voted against it. The Biju Janata Dal, Janata Dal United and the YSR Congress Party supported the bill.

The Lok Sabha had already passed the bill. In the lower House, too, the Congress had airing its misgivings but voted for it, probably on the fear that it would be labelled pro-terrorist if it did otherwise.

The existing UAPA empowers the central government to designate an organisation as a terrorist on the grounds of participating in acts of terrorism, preparing for terrorism and promoting terrorism. The amendment bill seeks to give additional power to the central government to designate individuals as terrorist on the same grounds.

Throughout the discussion, several Opposition parties expressed concern about the possibility of misuse of the law and objected to the power of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to approve seizure of property without the consent of authorities of the state to which the individual facing the investigation belongs.

Shah said the UAPA was used by both the NIA and the state governments. The NIA has registered 278 cases so far. Chargesheets have been filed in 204 cases and judgments delivered in 54 cases with convictions in 48. While 221 accused have been convicted, 92 suspects have been acquitted.

“There have been concerns about declaring a person as a terrorist. The cases registered under UAPA are complex. There are cases which are of inter-state and international nature. After an organisation is charged under UAPA, the persons associated with it immediately start another organisation. It is the people who cause incidents. If you do not name them as terrorists, you cannot stop them,” Shah said.

Shah contended that the US, Pakistan, China, Israel and the UN declare persons as terrorists. He said Indian Mujahideen’s Yasin Bhatkal was wanted and arrested in Calcutta in 2009 but was let off after he gave fake name. If he was declared a terrorist in 2009, all police stations would have got his pictures and he could not have escaped, Shah said.

Congress leader P. Chidambaram wanted the minister to clarify at which stage such a measure can be taken, whether after the arrest or after filing the charge sheet.

“There is no clarity about the stage at which the person will be declared a terrorist?,” Chidambaram said.

Shah said cases of terror were too complex to prescribe the stage when the individual can be declared a terrorist.

“I agree with him, there should have been clarity in the law. But the situation here is complex. Many terrorists leave the country. If we declare them only after interrogation, then we cannot declare Hafiz Saeed (Lashkar-e-Toiba co-founder) a terrorist even though the UN declares him a terrorist. We cannot declare Dawood Ibrahim a terrorist even though the UN declares him a terrorist,” Shah said.

“Generally, if the person is available, we would take action after intense interrogation and collection of evidence against him. But if the person is not cooperating, we have no option. We will have to take a decision on the basis of circumstantial evidence and statements,” Shah said.

The minister accused the Congress Party of misusing the laws. He cited the imposition of Emergency in 1975.

Congress leader Digvijaya Singh asked the government to clarify who would be declared terrorists and whether he himself was being considered for the label.

“Digvijaya Singhji wanted to be declared as a terrorist. I want to assure him that if you do not do anything, nothing will happen. When somebody indulges in terrorism, he would be called a terrorist,” Shah said.

He said that people of a particular religion were targeted in the Samjhauta Express blast case.

“Some persons were arrested in the Samjhauta Express case. When elections came, persons belonging to some organisation and a particular religion were arrested falsely. They were acquitted because the NIA could not produce any witness,” Shah said.

He dismissed the apprehension that state’s power was being encroached upon.

During his intervention, Chidambaram said the Congress was never soft on terrorism. The Congress had brought the UAPA and amended it in the past.

“Even before this amendment, individuals are covered under this act. The real objective of this bill is to empower the central government to declare an individual as a terrorist. We are opposed to this mischievous provision,” he said.

“The danger is, once an individual is named, look at the consequences… there is presumption of guilt. There is no anticipatory bail. There are serious consequences upon the individual,” Chidambaram said.

Chidambaram, a former home minister, cautioned the government against using this provision against activists.

“Don’t compare Hafiz Saeed with Gautam Nablekha. In Bhima Koregaon, Prof Soma Sen, Rona Wilson, Barbara Rao, Gautam Nablekha and Anand Teltumbde have been arrested. They are all activists. I believe none of them advocate violence,” Chidambaram said.

Digvijaya cited a few cases to blame the BJP government over acquittals. He said the accused in the Samjhauta Express and Mecca Masjid blast and Ajmer Sharif blast cases had been acquitted. “I want to ask why did the NIA prefer not to appeal against the acquittals in these cases,” Singh asked.

Singh said the list of NIA’s most wanted persons included the names of two “RSS activists”.