Why UAPA Demands Urgent Reform

13 Oct 2026

Tags: Governance   Policy Interventions   Policy design flaws

Source: The Hindu

Context: The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, has faced criticism over its broad definitions of unlawful activities and terrorism, stringent bail provisions, and prolonged detention without trial. The experiences of Professor G.N. Saibaba and other accused persons have renewed concerns about civil liberties, due process and the balance between national security and fundamental rights.

 

UAPA and Alleged Criminalisation of Dissent

• G.N. Saibaba case: Professor G.N. Saibaba, a 90% physically disabled former Delhi University professor, was arrested in 2014 over alleged links with Maoists, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2017, and acquitted by the Bombay High Court in 2024. After spending nearly a decade in prison, much of it in solitary confinement, he died soon after his release.
• Bhima Koregaon case (2018): Sixteen scholars and activists were arrested under UAPA following the violence associated with the Bhima Koregaon commemoration. Father Stan Swamy died in custody after his health deteriorated, while 14 of the remaining accused were subsequently granted bail after years in prison. Lawyer Surendra Gadling also obtained bail in this case but remained incarcerated in connection with another case. At the time of writing, the trial had not begun and charges had not been framed, despite approximately eight years having elapsed.
• Delhi riots case (2020): Several student leaders, scholars and activists were charged under UAPA for alleged involvement in or conspiracy behind the Delhi riots. The article argues that the allegations relied heavily on conspiracy theories and descriptions such as “intellectual architects”, rather than direct evidence of participation in violence. In early 2026, the Supreme Court granted bail to five of seven appellants after more than five years of detention but denied it to Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid, restricting their ability to seek bail again for one year.
• Khurram Parvez and Irfan Mehraj: Kashmiri activist Khurram Parvez, coordinator of the Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS), was arrested in 2021 on allegations of terror financing and promoting secessionism. Journalist Irfan Mehraj was arrested in March 2023 in the same case; both were granted bail in July 2026, after Parvez had spent years in prison without trial.
• Other cases cited: Adivasi leader Soni Sori was eventually acquitted after facing allegations of torture in custody; Assamese anti-CAA activist Akhil Gogoi was prosecuted under UAPA; and Kerala journalist Siddique Kappan spent about two years in prison before obtaining bail from the Supreme Court after being arrested while travelling to Uttar Pradesh to report on the Hathras gangrape case.

Vague and Broad Definitions under UAPA

• Ambiguity of membership: UAPA criminalises membership of unlawful organisations without clearly defining the term in a manner that consistently distinguishes active participation in unlawful activities from passive association, possession of literature or expression of political views.
• Broad terrorism-related provisions: Vague wording can enable authorities to interpret activities such as slogans, association or possession of material as evidence of unlawful conduct when linked to alleged terrorist activity, increasing the possibility of arbitrary application.
• Supreme Court ruling on membership (2011 and 2023): In 2011, the Supreme Court restricted the meaning of membership to active membership involving incitement to violence. In 2023, the Court overturned that judgment in review proceedings, reopening concerns about the scope of criminal liability for organisational membership.
• Delhi High Court interpretation of terrorism (Delhi riots cases): The High Court attempted to interpret UAPA's terrorism provisions narrowly to prevent their indiscriminate application. The Supreme Court subsequently directed that the judgment would not be treated as a precedent, limiting its value as binding legal guidance.

Stringent Bail Conditions and Prolonged Detention

• Section 43D(5): UAPA imposes stringent restrictions on bail in specified offences. The court must not grant bail if, after examining the case diary or police report, it considers the accusations prima facie true. This threshold can make bail difficult even before the prosecution evidence is fully tested at trial.
• Judicial inconsistency: Different courts and benches have adopted different approaches to examining prosecution material—ranging from closer scrutiny to substantial deference to the police version—making bail outcomes difficult to predict consistently.
• Delay in trials: The article highlights inconsistent judicial treatment of prolonged detention. In the cases of Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid, the Supreme Court did not consider the period of incarceration sufficient to justify bail in the circumstances before it, whereas bail was granted to Khurram Parvez after years without trial.
• Restrictive conditions after bail: Some accused persons face reporting requirements, travel restrictions and other conditions that continue to constrain their personal and professional lives even after release.
• Constitutional concern: Prolonged incarceration without trial risks turning pre-trial detention into punishment, undermining the presumption of innocence, personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial.

Implications for Democracy and the Rule of Law

• Chilling effect on dissent: Broad criminal provisions and prolonged detention may discourage political activism, academic research, journalism and peaceful criticism of government policies.
• Presumption of innocence: When bail is exceptionally difficult and trials are delayed, accused persons can suffer severe consequences before guilt is established through a completed trial.
• Due process and judicial consistency: Unclear legal standards and inconsistent interpretation weaken legal certainty and create concerns about equality before the law.
• National security versus civil liberties: While the State has a legitimate responsibility to prevent terrorism and protect national security, security measures must remain consistent with constitutional guarantees and safeguards against arbitrary detention.

Way Forward: Key Areas for UAPA Reform

• Define offences precisely: Clarify terms such as “membership”, “terrorism” and “unlawful activity” to distinguish violent or operational involvement from peaceful association, academic work and legitimate political expression.
• Revisit bail provisions: Review Section 43D(5) to ensure meaningful judicial scrutiny of prosecution evidence, particularly where allegations are weak or detention is prolonged.
• Prevent indefinite pre-trial detention: Establish effective mechanisms for periodic review of custody, timely framing of charges and speedy completion of trials, while ensuring that genuine security risks are assessed individually.
• Ensure consistent judicial interpretation: Develop clear legal standards for evaluating evidence, organisational membership, alleged conspiracy and the application of terrorism provisions.
• Strengthen accountability: Ensure effective remedies against wrongful prosecution and unlawful detention, alongside safeguards for legitimate investigations into terrorism.
• Balance security and liberty: Retain effective counterterrorism powers while ensuring that their use complies with constitutional rights, proportionality and due process.

Additional Information

1. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967

• Objective: Enacted to provide measures for preventing unlawful activities and, through subsequent amendments, to address terrorist activities and related offences.
• Key provisions: Section 2 defines important terms; Sections 3–8 deal with the declaration and consequences of unlawful associations; Section 13 penalises unlawful activities; Sections 15–23 address terrorist acts and related offences; Section 43D contains special procedural provisions, including restrictions on bail.
• 2019 amendment: Empowered the Central Government to designate individuals as terrorists under specified statutory conditions, in addition to its existing power to designate organisations.
• Investigation: The National Investigation Agency (NIA) investigates UAPA cases within its statutory jurisdiction, while other authorised police agencies may investigate cases as permitted by law.

2. Relevant Constitutional Provisions

• Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
• Article 19: Protects freedoms including speech and expression and peaceful assembly, subject to constitutionally permissible restrictions.
• Article 21: Protects life and personal liberty; its interpretation encompasses fair procedure and the right to a speedy trial.
• Article 22: Provides safeguards against arrest and detention, subject to specified exceptions, including provisions concerning preventive detention.
• Article 32 and Article 226: Enable constitutional remedies before the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively, including challenges to unlawful detention and violations of fundamental rights.