Why UAPA demands urgent reform

Why in the News

Activists, scholars and journalists charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) routinely spend years in prison without trial. The second death anniversary of Delhi University professor G.N. Saibaba, acquitted after a decade in prison, has renewed the case for reforming the law’s vague terms and near bar on bail.

How does the UAPA keep people in jail without trial?

1. What it is: The UAPA is India’s main anti-terror law. It defines offences broadly and makes bail very hard to get, so an accused can wait years for trial in jail.
2. Saibaba’s case: Arrested over alleged Maoist links and denied bail, the 90% disabled professor got a life sentence. The Bombay High Court acquitted him in 2024. He died soon after release.
3. The takeaway: Under the UAPA the process itself becomes the punishment, since a person can lose a decade before any court declares them innocent.

Which cases show the pattern?

1. Bhima Koregaon (2018): 16 scholars and activists were jailed under the UAPA. Charges have still not been framed, and the trial has not begun.
2. Bhima Koregaon accused: Father Stan Swamy died in custody. Fourteen others got bail only after years, on strict reporting and travel conditions.
3. Delhi riots (2020): Student leaders and scholars were charged with conspiracy without direct evidence. This year the Supreme Court bailed five of the seven appellants.
4. Imam and Khalid: The Court denied bail to Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid as “intellectual architects” of the riots, a term unknown to law. They have spent over six years without trial.
5. Khurram Parvez: Held on terror financing charges, the Kashmiri activist got bail in July 2026 after five years without trial.

Why is the UAPA’s reach so wide?

1. Undefined membership: The Act criminalises “membership” of an unlawful organisation without defining it. Other broad provisions can stretch to mere sloganeering or possessing literature.
2. Narrowing reversed: In Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam (2011), the Supreme Court read membership as “active membership”, meaning incitement to violence. In 2023 it reversed this in review jurisdiction, meant only to fix obvious errors.
3. Precedent neutralised: In a Delhi riots bail case, the Delhi High Court read the Act’s “terrorism” clauses narrowly. The Supreme Court ruled the judgment would “not be treated as precedent”.
4. Broad State discretion: Authorities can bring almost any conduct within the Act by tenuously linking it to terrorism or unlawful activity.

Why is bail so hard, and so dependent on the judge?

1. The bail bar: Under Section 43D(5), a judge must deny bail if the police chargesheet shows a prima facie case, meaning the accusation looks true on its face, before any evidence is tested.
2. Judge-centric bail: Some judges scrutinise chargesheets strictly; others take an “eyes wide shut” approach that defers to the police, so bail is “extremely judge-centric”.
3. Unsettled delay standard: The Supreme Court did not treat five years in prison as “excessive” delay when refusing bail to Imam and Khalid. Other courts, as in Khurram Parvez’s case, held that five years is excessive.

Challenges

1. Low conviction: Fewer than one in ten UAPA cases ended in conviction between 2019 and 2023, so most accused are jailed without proof of guilt.
2. Long custody before charges: The Act allows up to 180 days of detention before a chargesheet, double the 90 days allowed for other serious offences.
3. Trial pendency: Slow investigations and overloaded special courts turn the bail bar into open ended custody.

Way Forward

1. Define the terms: Parliament should define “membership” and “terrorist act” narrowly in the Act itself.
2. Time bound trials: Set deadlines for framing charges and ending UAPA trials, with bail as of right once a deadline lapses.
3. Delay as a bail ground: Apply Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) uniformly; it lets constitutional courts grant bail where trial is unlikely to end soon.
4. Chargesheet scrutiny: Courts should test the chargesheet’s material before applying the bail bar.

Conclusion

A vague law with stringent bail terms, read in ways that widen rather than limit State discretion, produces years of imprisonment without trial. Whether Parliament or the Supreme Court narrows the definitions and settles when delay alone earns bail is what to watch.

Back2Basics: Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967

1. Purpose: The Act defines and penalises unlawful and terrorist activities and bans terrorist organisations.
2. Amendments: It has been amended several times since 2004. The 2019 amendment lets the Centre designate individuals, not only organisations, as terrorists.
3. Investigation: The National Investigation Agency (NIA) investigates UAPA cases and can attach property linked to terror.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2026] X’ was addressing a seminar on the meaning of the term ‘law’ as provided under Article 13, Part III of the Constitution of India. ‘X’ explained that the meaning of the term ‘law’ in the Constitution of India was very comprehensive. It included ordinances, orders and even rules and regulations. ‘Y’ pointed out that the term ‘law’ in Article 13 also included custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law, to which ‘X’ was not convinced. Based on the above, select the correct conclusion from the options given below: (a) X is correct in the interpretation of law, including the view on non-inclusion of custom (b) The view of Y that ‘law’ included custom is not correct (c) The views of both X and Y are correct (d) The view of only Y is correct ANSWER: D”