Supreme Court Flags Misuse of UAPA, Reaffirms Right to Personal Liberty
- ByAdmin --
- 17 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
The Supreme Court has issued strong observations about the misuse of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), emphasizing that personal liberty must not be undermined by draconian provisions. In a series of rulings and comments, the Court has stressed due process, judicial oversight, and the necessity of preserving constitutional rights even under anti-terror laws.
Context and Concerns
The UAPA is intended to combat terrorism and unlawful activities by allowing stringent measures, including denial of bail and extended pre-charge incarceration. However, reports and petitions have highlighted a low conviction rate and the frequent arrest of individuals on weak or disproportionate grounds.
Several senior judges and legal experts have called for scrapping or reforming UAPA, arguing that:
- Accusations often rely on vague or broad categorizations.
- Courts should not hesitate to grant bail even under this special law.
- Judicial sanctions—such as written grounds for arrest and strict timelines—are essential to prevent misuse.
Supreme Court Observations
1. "Bail, Not Jail" Even Under UAPA
The Court reiterated that bail should be the rule, not the exception—even in UAPA cases. Seriousness of alleged offences cannot override constitutional protections under Article 21 (right to life and liberty). Once an accused establishes a prima facie case for bail, courts must grant it without undue delay.
2. Written Grounds on Arrest
Extending previous principles, the Court held that those arrested under UAPA must be provided with a written explanation of the grounds of arrest. This safeguards the basic fairness due to the accused and enables effective legal challenge.
3. Checks Against Executive Overreach
In one case, the Court censured state police for filing UAPA charges immediately after interim bail in an unrelated offence—viewing it as a strategy to circumvent judicial orders. It warned of contempt consequences and stressed that police must not use UAPA opportunistically.
4. Concern Over Low Conviction Rates
The Court noted that a disproportionately low number of UAPA cases result in conviction, despite long detentions. It highlighted the psychological and social harm caused by extended pre-trial incarceration, urging strict alignment with procedural standards and speedy trials.
Broader Legal Principles at Play
- Personal Liberty Priority: Article 21 mandates that individuals should not be deprived of liberty simply because a law allows it. UAPA’s provisions must conform to constitutional benchmarks.
- Principles from Maneka Gandhi Doctrine: Even in context of special legislation, any deprivation of liberty must be accompanied by just, fair, and reasonable procedures.
- Arnesh Kumar Mandate: The Court’s insistence on written grounds reflects this doctrine, ensuring legality and preventing arbitrary detentions.
Impact and Way Forward
- Stronger Judicial Oversight:
- Courts are now more assertive in evaluating UAPA bail pleas.
- Administrative delays and procedural lapses in arrests and prosecution can no longer be overlooked.
- Courts are now more assertive in evaluating UAPA bail pleas.
- Procedural Reforms:
- Mandatory written arrest grounds and defined timelines for sanction will bring greater clarity.
- Mechanisms like judicial review and accountability of investigating agencies are likely to be reinforced.
- Mandatory written arrest grounds and defined timelines for sanction will bring greater clarity.
- Policy Implications:
- Legislators may revisit UAPA’s structure, closing loopholes that enable misuse.
- Discussions on repealing UAPA or introducing a more balanced counter-terror law are gaining momentum.
- Legislators may revisit UAPA’s structure, closing loopholes that enable misuse.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s recent remarks on UAPA misuse serve as a critical reminder: even laws designed for national security must operate within constitutional limits. By stressing bail, procedural fairness, and protection of personal liberty, the Court reaffirms its role as guardian of fundamental rights. These judgments mark a positive shift toward ensuring that anti-terror laws do not become tools for unchecked state power
RELATED Blog
0 comments