MUMBAI, July 18 -- The Bombay high court on Thursday upheld the constitutional validity of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Stating that the law sat rightly with the Constitution of India, the court dismissed the petition which sought to declare the enactment unconstitutional. "The UAPA in its present form is constitutionally valid, therefore, the challenge to its vires fails, and the petition is dismissed," stated the division bench of Justices Ajey Gadkari and Dr Neela Gokhale. The petitioner, Anil Baburao Baile, had challenged the anti-terror law in the context of the Elgar Parishad case. On January 1, 2018, he went to the site of the Bhima Koregaon memorial commemorating the battle in which soldiers of the Mahar regiment died. An event organised by the Elgar Parishad to commemorate 200 years of the battle had been organised there as well as another one by a Hindutvavadi body. A scuffle broke out there, in which a passerby was killed. After the case was transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), Baile was sent a notice on July 10, 2020, which invoked UAPA provisions against him. He was grilled about the Elgar Parishad. In his petition filed through advocates Prakash Ambedkar, Nikhil Kamble and Hitendra Gandhi, Baile stated that he was a regular visitor to Bhima-Koregaon on January 1 every year. However, he was allegedly pushed by the NIA to give details of the Elgar Parishad functions, despite having no knowledge. "The officer threatened to arrest the petitioner and charge him under UAPA and Section 124A of the IPC, which pertains to sedition, which would declare him a terrorist," the petition said. Subsequently, Baile moved the Bombay high court to quash the NIA notice, and challenged the validity of the UAPA and Section 124A of the lPC. Highlighting the need to decide what amounted to "unlawful activities" and whether he could be called a terrorist, he questioned if sedition has a place in the sovereign republic nation. He also pointed out that UAPA was against the principle and spirit of the Constitution. "Nowhere does the Constitution authorise blanket power to the executive body in deciding, nor is Parliament granted blanket power to declare an organisation as unlawful except if it violates the principle of Article 15 and 17 and the preamble of the Constitution," his petition stated. Baile highlighted that the amendment introduced in UAPA in view of the United Nations Security Council resolution dated September 28, 2001 required all member states to take measures to combat international terrorism. "While the UN criminalises any action in support of international terrorism, this amendment has gone beyond the mandate of the resolution and the Constitution by declaring that Indian citizens can be charged and called terrorists," the petition added. Baile contended that at times, such judgments and acts were likely to be misused. Hence an examination and re-examination was necessary as internal sovereignty and integrity was the responsibility of the citizen and not of the government....