the rank of Deputy Superintendent or Assistant Commissioner of Police or above. The Bill additionally empowers the officers of the NIA, of the rank of Inspector or above, to investigate cases. Insertion to schedule of treaties: The Act defines terrorist acts to include acts committed within the scope of any of the treaties listed in a schedule to the Act. The Schedule lists nine treaties, including the Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (1997), and the Convention against Taking of Hostages (1979). The Bill also adds another treaty to the list. This is the International Convention for Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism (2005). Mechanism For prosecution under Section 13 of the UAPA, the permission of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is required. However, for prosecution under Sections 16,17 and 18, the permission of the respective State government is required. Section 25 allows the NIA to seize property it considers to be proceeds of terrorism, with the written consent of the Director General of Police (DGP) of the State. However, it is possible for the NIA officer to obtain the consent of the DGP of the NIA thus bypassing the State DGP The police normally have 60 to 90 days to investigate a case and submit a charge-sheet failing which the accused may obtain default bail. However, under the UAPA, this pre-charge sheet time is extended to 180 days. Further, normal bail rules do not apply to an accused under Section 43(d)5 of the UAPA. Criticism UAPA is criticized for its low conviction rate, which is around 2%. According to the data shared by the Union Government, in the period 2016 to 2020, 5,027 cases were registered under the act with 24,134 people accused in those cases. Only 212 of 24,134 people were convicted and 386 were acquitted. This means, in the years 2016-2020, 97.5% of the people arrested under UAPA remain under prison awaiting for trial. In July 2019 while introducing the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Bill, 2019 the BJP led Union Government claimed that the bill would give it power to probe terror attacks on India, the Opposition parties in the Lok Sabha termed it draconian. The Opposition claimed that the Bill did not contain any provisions to prevent misuse. Specifically, the power to designate an individual as a terrorist before being proven guilty by trial, was criticised. Critics of the UAPA consider the definitions of