Bail Under UAPA – SC’s Divergent Approaches Raise Constitutional Questions

Bail Under UAPA Latest News

• In a significant ruling granting bail to a Kashmiri man in an alleged narco-terror case, the Supreme Court of India (SC) gave a landmark verdict.
• It reiterated that prolonged incarceration under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) cannot override the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21.
• The court emphasised upon the landmark 2021 K.A. Najeeb judgment, once again exposing the evolving and often divergent judicial approaches within the SC regarding bail under anti-terror laws.

What is UAPA?

• Background:
  • Enacted in 1967, the law deals with the unlawful activities threatening India’s sovereignty and integrity. 
  • Over time, especially after the 2004, 2008 and 2019 amendments, it evolved into India’s principal anti-terror legislation.
• Key features:
  • Declares organisations and individuals as terrorists,
  • Empowers the National Investigation Agency (NIA),
  • Allows extended detention periods,
  • Provides stringent bail restrictions,
  • Permits seizure of property linked to terror activities.
• Bail process:
  • Section 43(D)(5): It makes grant of bail extremely difficult. A court cannot grant bail if the prosecution shows a prima facie case against the accused. This creates a reverse burden (on the accused person) compared to ordinary criminal law.
• Implications:
  • Courts often rely heavily on prosecution documents at the bail stage,
  • Detailed scrutiny of evidence is discouraged,
  • Undertrials may remain incarcerated for years before trial completion.

‹ ›

Divergent SC Verdicts on the Issue

• The Watali Judgment (2019):
  • Strengthening state power: The SC held that courts must largely accept the prosecution’s version at the bail stage, evidence need not be tested rigorously during bail hearings, and only a broad prima facie assessment is required.
  • Impact: The ruling significantly tightened bail standards under UAPA and led to prolonged incarceration of undertrials, increased judicial deference to investigative agencies.
• The K.A. Najeeb Judgment (2021): 
  • Reasserting constitutional liberty: The Court held that –
    • Constitutional courts can grant bail despite statutory restrictions, 
    • Prolonged delay in trial violates Article 21, 
    • Personal liberty cannot be indefinitely suspended merely because UAPA is invoked.
  • Constitutional significance: The judgment restored balance between national security concerns, and fundamental rights protections. The present ruling reaffirms that Najeeb remains the binding precedent (“good law”).
• Judgments ignoring Najeeb precedent:
  • Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2024): The court cautioned against “mechanical” invocation of delay to seek bail, suggesting bail should only be considered if it also satisfies the test under Section 43(D)(5) of UAPA. 
  • In (January) 2026, the court held that the accused in the Northeast Delhi riots case had not “crossed the constitutional threshold” of delay to seek bail.

Significance of the Recent Judgment

• The judgment revisits a core constitutional dilemma: Can stringent anti-terror bail provisions prevail indefinitely over the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21?
• The court stressed that prolonged detention without trial cannot become punishment in disguise. Sec­tion 43­D(5) remains subordinate to Article 21 at all times. 
• The ruling also highlights:
  • Judicial inconsistency in UAPA bail jurisprudence,
  • Tension between national security and civil liberties,
  • Need for doctrinal clarity from a larger constitutional bench.
• The apex court voiced “ser­i­ous reser­va­tions” about “vari­ous aspects” of its Janu­ary 2026 judg­ment refus­ing bail to former JNU stu­dent leader Umar Khalid in the Delhi riots case, includ­ing the denial of their right to seek bail for a year.

Way Ahead to Avoid Divergence in Judicial Approach

• Constitution bench clarification: A larger Bench should authoritatively settle the relationship between Article 21 and Section 43(D)(5), and the scope of judicial scrutiny at bail stage.
• Time-bound trials in UAPA cases: Special courts must ensure speedy trials, regular monitoring, prevention of indefinite detention.
• Clear bail guidelines: The SC must frame uniform principles regarding duration of incarceration, evidentiary thresholds, and constitutional safeguards.
• Strengthening judicial discipline: Smaller benches must consistently follow larger bench precedents unless formally referred for reconsideration.
• Periodic review of UAPA provisions: Parliament should examine safeguards against misuse, proportionality of detention provisions, and accountability mechanisms for investigative agencies.

Conclusion

• The controversy reflects a deeper constitutional debate:
  • Is bail the rule and jail the exception even under anti-terror laws?
  • Can prolonged detention without trial be justified in a constitutional democracy?
  • How should courts balance collective security with individual liberty?
• The answers will shape the future of criminal justice and constitutional freedoms in India.
• A balanced framework — one that protects both national security and constitutional freedoms — is essential for preserving the rule of law in a democratic republic.

Source: IE | TH