Political analyst and professor K Nageshwar has strongly criticised the Andhra Pradesh government’s decision to invoke the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) against activist and YouTuber Prashna Ravan, alleging that the stringent anti-terror law was used to prevent him from securing bail and to create fear among those questioning the government.
Speaking to a television channel, Nageshwar said Ravan had already been arrested four times in earlier cases and had secured bail each time.
According to him, the invocation of the UAPA appears to have been intended solely to deny him bail rather than being based on the gravity of the alleged offence.
Referring to Supreme Court guidelines governing arrests, he said courts have repeatedly emphasised that arrests cannot be made mechanically.
He said the apex court had laid down clear principles on arrests and that police must record specific reasons before taking a person into custody.
He further argued that judicial officers should satisfy themselves about the necessity of an arrest before authorising detention, particularly in cases involving offences carrying lesser punishments.
According to him, courts have also warned against arbitrary arrests and indicated that officials violating these principles could face departmental or judicial consequences.
The professor argued that the UAPA had been invoked not because of the seriousness of the alleged offence, but solely to ensure that Ravan remained in jail.
He described the case as an act of political vendetta, saying questions had been raised over why similar speeches allegedly made by Andhra Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan in the past did not attract comparable legal action, while Ravan’s remarks resulted in prosecution under a stringent anti-terror law.
“If speeches alone attract the UAPA, then a vast majority of politicians in Andhra Pradesh would have to be arrested because they routinely use language far harsher than what was attributed to Ravan,” he said.
Nageshwar also recalled observations made by former Chief Justice of India N V Ramana regarding the alleged misuse of stringent laws.
He said the UAPA was enacted to deal with terrorism and threats to the sovereignty, integrity and unity of the nation, and warned that extending its application to controversial speeches or political criticism would dilute the law’s credibility.
“If such extraordinary laws are used in ordinary political disputes, people may eventually begin questioning even genuine anti-terror investigations,” he cautioned.
The professor alleged that the arrest was intended to intimidate members of civil society and discourage criticism of the government.
He claimed that governments are generally less concerned about criticism from opposition parties than from independent voices in civil society, and suggested that the arrest was meant to send a message that anyone questioning those in power could face similar consequences.
He said governments should respond to criticism through debate and counter-arguments rather than by invoking harsh criminal laws, adding that selective prosecution would ultimately fail to divert public attention from larger governance issues.
