A PROJECT WORK ON

PREVENTIVE DETENTION LAW AND IMPACT ON RULE

OF LAW: A STUDY

SUBMITTED TO
BARODA SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES
THE FACULTY OF LAW
THE MAHARAJA SAYAJIRAO UNIVERSITY OF
VADODARA

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF B.A. LL.B (Hons.)
FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2023-24

RESEARCH GUIDE: SUBMITTED BY:

MR. HEMANG SHAH VYAS SANKALP SANJAYKUMAR
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR 4TH YEAR B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)
FACULTY OF LAW FACULTY OF LAW
THE MS UNIVERSITY OF VADODARA THE MS UNIVERSITY OF VADODARA

0
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this project work entitled “Preventive Detention Law and Impact on
Rule of Law: A Study” was carried out by me for the degree of B.A.LL.B (Hons.) under the
guidance and supervision of Mr. Hemang Shah, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, The
Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Vadodara, Gujarat India.
The interpretations put forth are based on my reading and understanding of the original texts
and they are not published anywhere in the form of books, monographs or articles. The other
books, articles and websites, which I have made use of are acknowledged at the respective
place in the text.

DATE: RESEARCH STUDENT:

PLACE: VYAS SANKALP SANJAYKUMAR

4th YEAR B.A. LL.B (Hons.)

Faculty of Law

The MS University of Vadodara

1
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that this Dissertation on “Preventive Detention Law and Impact on Rule of
Law: A Study” has been prepared by Vyas Sankalp Sanjaykumar under the guidance and
instrumentation of Mr. Hemang Shah, Assistant Professor, Baroda School of Legal Studies,
Faculty of Law, The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda and is recommended for
submission to the Examiner.

Signature of Research Guide: Signature of Dean:

Mr. Hemang Shah Dr. Archana Gadekar,

Assistant Professor, I/C Dean,
Faculty of Law, Faculty of Law,
The MS University of Vadodara The MS University of Vadodara

Date:

2
 ACKNOWLDGEMENT

I owe my gratitude to all those people who have helped me in the successful completion of
this dissertation.

My deepest gratitude to my project guide Mr. Hemang Shah, Faculty of Law, The Maharaja
Sayajirao University of Baroda. I have been extremely fortunate to have a guide like him who
gave me absolute freedom to explore my own ideas and interpretations and at the same time
guided and motivated me tirelessly throughout the dissertation from the very first day, till the
last day of submission. I sincerely acknowledge his wholehearted cooperation, patience and
support throughout my research work.

3
 TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Sr. No. Title Pg. No.

1. Table of cases 5

2. List of abbreviations 6

3. Chapter I: Introduction 7-13

4. Chapter II: National and International legislative backgound 14-21

5. Chapter III: Judicial Approach 22-33

6. Chapter IV: Data Analysis 34-47

7. Chapter V: Conclusion and Suggestions 48-52

8. References, Bibliography and Webliography 53-55

4
 TABLE OF CASES:

1. Sajal Awasthi v. Union of India

2. NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1: (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 383
3. K.A. Najeeb v. Union of India, Criminal Appeal No. 659 of 2019.
4. Romila Thapar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 753: 2018 SCC Online SC 1691:
AIR 2018 SC 4683
5. Umar Khalid v. State of National Capital Territory of Delhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del
3423

5
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And
UAPA Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act
V. Versus
CrPC Criminal Procedure Code
IPC Indian Penal Code
J Journal
L Law
NHRC National Human Rights commission
NSA National Security Act, 1980
PSA Public Safety Acts
PDA Preventive Detention Act, 1950
POTA Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002
SCC Supreme Court Cases
TADA Terrorist and Dispruptive Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1987

6
 Preventive Detention Law and Impact on Rule of Law: A Study

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Preventive detention refers to the detention of an individual without a trial or conviction by a

court. In India, various laws provide for preventive detention, including the National Security
Act (NSA) of 1980, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) of 1967, and state
specific laws like the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) and the Public Safety
Acts (PSA) in certain states1

In this study researcher will focus on UAPA and the stringent provision of bail in that
particular act.

This was put into effect as an emergency measure and was meant to expire quickly.
Nonetheless, the Preventive Detention Act was in effect for roughly twenty years after it was
passed. Preventive detention is an administrative measure implemented when there is
reasonable suspicion that the individual in question may commit wrongdoing that could harm
the state.

Under the umbrella of preventive detention law the UAPA was enacted to prevent unlawful
activities which aimed to pose threat to the integrity and sovereignty of India. It empowered
the government to declare any organisation which indulged in ‘unlawful activities’. But
eventually the concern shifted from organisation to an individual through various
amendments. Even though being an important provision for the safety and integrity of the
nation, the bail provisions is a harsh part of that law.

https://vajiramias.com/current-affairs/what-is-preventive-detention/64dc84dff5b0eb059ea9a729/#:~:text=Article
%2022%20(4)states%20that,the%20grounds%20of%20his%20detention.

7
Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, commonly known as the UAPA,
is a critical provision in India's legal framework aimed at combating unlawful activities and
terrorism. Enacted in 1967 and subsequently amended to address evolving threats, the UAPA
provides law enforcement agencies with tools to investigate, prosecute, and prevent acts of
terrorism and unlawful activities that pose a threat to the sovereignty and integrity of the
nation.

Section 43D(5) specifically pertains to the grant or denial of bail in cases involving offences
under the UAPA. It establishes a stringent criterion for the grant of bail, emphasising the
presumption of guilt for individuals accused of committing such offences. Under this
provision, the burden of proof lies on the accused to demonstrate there innocence, shifting the
traditional burden of proof framework.

Furthermore, Section 43D(5) outlines specific conditions that must be satisfied for bail to be
granted, including a mandatory requirement for the public prosecutor to be given an
opportunity to oppose the bail application. This provision underscores the seriousness with
which offences under the UAPA are regarded by the legal system and the state, reflecting the
imperative to prevent the misuse of bail provisions in cases involving terrorism and unlawful
activities.

Section 43D(5) of the UAPA plays a pivotal role in ensuring effective counterterrorism
measures by establishing stringent bail conditions and emphasizing the presumption of guilt,
thereby bolstering the state's ability to combat threats to national security and public safety.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:

1. To Examine the manner in which powers pertaining to the Section 43D(5) of the UAPA are
arbitrarily used by the State.
2. To check whether such provision is inconsistent with the principles of natural justice.
3. To study the current trends of judicial pronouncements in this regard.
4. To examine the impact of this provision on Human and Fundamental Rights

8
 SIGNIFICANCE AND UTILITY OF THE STUDY:

The significance and utility of the study on Section 43D(5) of the UAPA can be substantial:

1. This study will provide a comprehensive understanding of Section 43D(5) of the

UAPA, its historical context, evolution, and its significance. This understanding is
important for legal practitioners, policymakers, and scholars who are interested I
counterterrorism legislation.
2. By assessing the practical implications of Section 43D(5) on the legal treatment of
individuals accused of terrorism, unlawful activities, the study can inform policy
discussions on bail proceddings, presumption of guilt, and burden of proof. It may
contribute to reforms at ensuring fairness in legal procedures while maintaining
national security.
3. Investigating judicial interpretations and precedents related to section 43D(5) can
provide valuable insights on how courts navigate the complexities of counterterrorism
cases. Understanding trends, challenges, and reasoning behind bail decisions can help
in developing legal strategies and improving judicial practices.
4. Exploring societal and human rights perspectives regarding Section 43D(5) is
essential for assessing its impact on fundamental rights such as access to justice, due
process, and right to fair trial. This aspect of the study can raise awareness about
potential abuses or shortcomings in anti-terrorism laws and advocate for safeguards to
protect individual liberties.

HYPOTHESIS:

The researcher has formulated the following hypothesis:

1. The UAPA Act grants wide discretionary powers to State, which are misused, or
arbitrarily used at times.
2. At times, provisions of UAPA come to conflict with the rule of law and other
human and fundamental rights.
3. The UAPA Act, at times fails to serve the objects of its enactment.

9
 RATIONALE OF THE STUDY:

The researcher initiated this study due to the instances that happened because of this stringent
bail conditions of the Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which violets the principle of natural
justice and individual’s rights as a citizen of India. Under this act a simple individual can be
declared a terrorist without any checks and balances by the state.
In one of the cases it has happened that due to delay in trial and delay in investigation and
framing of charge sheet, an individual was kept in the custody for almost 7-8 years. Because
the Judge will only start trial after the complete investigation is done. Because the essence of
the UAPA was to ban organization and not the individual.
There have been instances where whatever the prosecution has presented was considered to
be the gospel truth and due to this kind of stringent bail provisions accused were pleading
guilty falsely because of the unfair trial practices.
There have been an instance where an individual died in a tragic way. That individual was
denied bail even under medical grounds several times, and he died I the custody on the day
his bail hearing was scheduled.
These injustices necessitated the research of section 43D(5) to address flaws in the system
and ensure the protection of rights and fair treatment for all individuals.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY:

Here is a scope of study on Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act:

1. Conducting an extensive historical legal analysis of Section 43D(5) from the

inception of UAPA in 1967 to present day, tracking legislative history,
amendments, and stated objectives sought to be achieved through this provision.

10
2. Reviewing Judicial precedents and case laws pertaining to Section 43D(5),
synthesizing Supreme Court and High Court positions on its constitutional
validity, interpretations of terms, application in bail petitions.
3. Critically analyzing the legal logic and practical implications and reasoning of
Judiciary and prosecutors on limitations and procedures of bail application.
4. Conducting comparative analysis of Section 43D(5) provisions and similar legal
stipulations governing bail in terrorism related cases across major common law
and jurisdictions.
5. Examining section 43D(5) with human rights standards and principles of due
process, fair trial, presumption of innocence and liberty under domestic and
international laws.
6. Analyzing data on bail rejections under section 43D(5), duration of pre trial
detention, acquittals, convictions, arrests and charges to see impacts on case
outcome and use or abuse of the law.

The detailed, multi-disciplinary scope will provide a comprehensive, evidence-based

understanding of the complex legal, procedural, rights-based and policy issues
surrounding this controversial anti-terrorism provision and what can be done to make
it more citizen friendly.

SCHEME OF STUDY:

Here is a proposed scheme of study to examine Section 43D(5) of the UAPA based on
the key concepts:

1. Chapter 1: Introduction
In this chapter, the research scholar has provided a brief overview of the subject of
the project work. The research scholar has also given a detailed overview of the
hypothesis, objective, scope, rationale, utility and research methodology of the
study.

2. Chapter 2: legislative background – National & International

11
 The research scholar in this chapter will examine in the existing legislation related
to the topic. The chapter will also include a comparative analysis of foreign
legislation with the legislation found in India.

3. Chapter 3: Judicial approach

The research scholar will rely on landmark judgements that have shaped the
jurisprudence of the particular section regarding bail under UAPA. The precedents
and their impact on Indian society will be analysed.

4. Chapter 4: Analysis of Data

The research scholar will be relying on data gathered from secondary sources such
as government data, articles, interviews etc. this data will be analysed which will
contribute to the final conclusion of the project.

5. Chapter 5: Conclusion and suggestions:

This chapter will be the concluding part of the project. It will state inferences
generated from the research carried out in the previous chapters. The research
scholar will analyse the aforementioned chapters and find appropriate suggestions
and reforms in the legislation factor for bail provision.

The study will be structured to provide background context, outline the conceptual
framework, undertake doctrinal legal analysis, assess real-world implications,
provide comparative perspectives and arrive at conclusions on Section 43D(5) in a
systematic manner. The focus will be on evaluating this controversial provision
from a rule of law, rights and proportionality lens.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

The researcher will use different methods to study the topic thoroughly. Both Doctrinal and
Non-Doctrinal method will be used in this study. researcher will look at legal rules and cases,
compare different laws, gather data through surveys, articles or inter views, examine specific

12
cases pertaining to the provision, and explore how legal ideas have changed over time.
Researcher will also take interview for data collections.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Bhatia G. (20….)Revising the basics? – On the Supreme Court’s Proclamation of “Jail

as the Rule” in UAPA cases: In this article the author has aimed to study and discuss the one
of the landmark judgements related to the law, and a set of principles that a judge cognizant
of the UAPA’s state-citizen imbalances must invoke in adjudicating bail. Author also
discusses the Court’s proclamation – “bail is the exception, and jail is the rule”

Dr. Krishnan G. Preventive Detention in India: A Legal Perspective: The topic of

preventive detention in India is covered in this essay. The author has looked at the different
constitutional clauses pertaining to preventive detention. After that, the numerous Acts
enacted by the Indian parliament and state legislatures were scrutinised in light of preventive
detention. After that, the operation of several laws pertaining to preventive detention in India
has been looked at. After that, the different aspects of preventive detention were discussed in
relation to democratic values and the framework of a democratic state.

13
 Chapter 2

Historical Development of Preventive Detention Laws:

Preventive Detention laws in India have roots in the administration of British Colony which
made great efforts to suppress dissent and maintain control. The British enacted several laws
like the Bengal Regulation III of 1818 and the Rowlatt Act of 1919, which allowed the
detention of the individuals without trial.

After independence, India inherited these laws but there was balance needed for public order
with democratic principles. The Constitution of India, while guaranteeing fundamental rights,
also allowed for preventive detention under Article 22 for reasons of state security, public
order, or preventing Incitement to an offence. The government enacted laws like the
Preventive Detention Act of 1950 and later the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA)
in 1971, which gave authorities broad powers of detention.

The period of the Emergency declared by then – Prime Minister Indira Gandhi saw a
significant expansion of preventive detention powers. Thousands of individuals, including
political opponents, were detained without trial under the provisions of MISA.

The abuse of the Emergency led to reevaluation of preventive detention laws. The 44th
Amendment to the Constitution in 1978 amended article 22, limiting the duration of
preventive detention to three months, after which an advisory board review became
mandatory. The government repealed MISA in 1977 and replaced it with National Security
Act (NSA) in 1980.

Over the years, preventive detention laws have continued to evolve in response to security
challenges and judicial interventions. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967,
amended multiple times, provides for preventive detention in cases elated to terrorism and
unlawful activities.

14
Preventive detention laws, when wielded indiscriminately, can indeed stifle dissent and erode
fundamental rights, in the Indian context, The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)
has often been criticized as a draconian law that poses a significant threat to civil liberties.

The researcher will focus on UAPA as a preventive detention law and its stringent provisions
for this particular research.

Brief history of UAPA:

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) is an Indian law enacted in 1967 with the
aim of preventing unlawful activities that threaten the sovereignty and integrity of India.
Initially introduced to combat insurgency in the north eastern states, the law underwent
several amendments over the years to address emerging security challenges, including
terrorism, separatism, and extremism across the country.

Prior to the redesigning of UAPA, terrorist activities were primarily dealt with under the now
repealed Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA) and Prevention
of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA). Over the years, a number of challenges have been made to
the constitutional validity of both TADA and POTA.2

Under the UAPA, the government has broad powers to designate individuals and
organizations as "terrorists" and to detain suspects without formal charges for extended
periods. The law also allows for the seizure of property and assets believed to be linked to
unlawful activities. However, critics argue that the UAPA's provisions are overly broad and
can be used to stifle dissent and target political opponents. In recent years, the law has been
invoked in high-profile cases, sparking debates about its compatibility with democratic
principles and human rights standards.

In 2008 amendment made to this act, introducing, section 43D(5), the provision which makes
it impossible to be granted bail by the trial court, as the existence of a prima facie case is
considered sufficient to deny bail.

2
https://www.scobserver.in/journal/brief-history-challenges-to-the-uapa/

15
The UAPA, enacted in 1967, was strengthened by the Congress-led UPA government in 2008
and 2012. The test for denying bail under the UAPA is that the court must be satisfied that a
“prima facie” case exists against the accused. In 2019, the SC defined prima facie narrowly to
mean that the courts must not analyse evidence or circumstances but look at the “totality of
the case” presented by the state.3

There are other provisions in UAPA, that have been challenged in the Apex court. In 2019,
Certain amendments were carried out in the Act. One of the most significant changes brought
about by the amendment was that it altered section 35 and gave Central Government the
power to notify an individual as a ‘terrorist’ under Schedule IV of the Act. Before the
Amendment, only organisations could have been designated this way and individuals were
not covered.4

The Petitioners that challenged this arbitrary provisions argued that this amendment gives
arbitrary power to the government to target voices of dissent and opposition. Further,
Sections 35 and 36 violate the right to equality under Article 14, right to freedom of speech
under Article 19(1)(a) and right to life with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.5

Similar conditions or provisions can be observed in various other democratic countries.

Terrorist attacks is an international issue, and strict measures are truly needed to curb that
issue but not by compromising civil liberties and fundamental rights of freedom and justice of
an individual.

Similar laws in other countries:

https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/section-43d5-how-it-sets-the-bar-for-bail-so-high-under-uapa-73906
73/

https://www.scobserver.in/cases/sajal-awasthi-union-of-india-constitutionality-of-uapa-amendment-case-backgr
ound/
5

https://www.scobserver.in/reports/sajal-awasthi-union-of-india-constitutionality-of-uapa-amendment-writ-petitio
ns-summary/

16
USA:
USA PATRIOT ACT:
It was enacted in response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, this act expanded the
surveillance and investigative powers of law enforcement agencies.
It allowed for the detention of foreign nationals suspected of terrorist activities without trial
and authorized the use of wiretaps and surveillance on individuals suspected of involvement
in terrorism. 6
The Patriot Act, however, unconstitutionally amends the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
to allow the government to conduct searches without notifying the subjects, at least until long
after the search has been executed. This means that the government can enter a house,
apartment or office with a search warrant when the occupants are away, search through their
property, take photographs, and in some cases even seize property – and not tell them until
later.7
Currently this law has expired after several changes and amendments.

U.K:
After the September 11 (9/11) attacks on the United States and the subsequent introduction of
the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373, The United Kingdom hurriedly
updated its recently introduced Terrorism Act 2000 (TA 2000) to reflect the challenges and
responsibilities presented by new “global War on Terrorism” (GWOT). Since 2001 –
especially following the 7 July (7/7) London bombings – a litany of Terror laws have been
introduced that many human rights commentators have denounced as draconian and
ill-balanced due to their wide-reaching capabilities and the potential for such laws to
encroach on civil liberties, including the right to privacy and freedom of speech.8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act#:~:text=The%20Patriot%20Act%20was%20enacted%20in%20direct
%20response%20to%20the,of%20dramatically%20strengthening%20national%20security.

https://www.aclu.org/documents/surveillance-under-usapatriot-act#:~:text=The%20Patriot%20Act%2C%20how
ever%2C%20unconstitutionally,the%20search%20has%20been%20executed.

8
Honeywood, C. A. (2016). Britain’s Approach to Balancing Counter-Terrorism Laws with Human Rights.
Journal of Strategic Security, 9(3), 28-48. https://doi.org/26473337

17
CANADA:
The Anti – terrorism Act was passed by the Parliament of Canada in response to the same
9/11 attacks in the United States. It received Royal Assent on December 18, 2001, as ‘Bill
C-36’.9
The act broadened the definition of terrorism and provided law enforcement agencies with
enhanced powers to investigate and prevent terrorist activites.
It also introduced controversial provision for preventive detention which received most
attention from civil rights group. Members of civil liberties groups and legal experts alike
have questioned he legitimacy of those provisions that appear to be in direct contradiction
with several articles of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter). Articles 9
and 10 of the charter hold that “everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or
imprisoned” and that upon arrest or detention everyone has the right to “be informed
promptly of the reasons…. To retain and instruct counsel without delay, and to be informed of
that right and to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to
be released if that detention is now lawful.” Additionally Article 11 states that anyone
charged with an offence, to be tried within a reasonable amount of time and to have a public
hearing.10
Due to the Anti-Terrorism Act's powers of arrest and detention, which violate the charter, a
large portion of Canadian civil society has spoken out against it.

These laws, like the UAPA, aim to address the threat of terrorism and protect national interest
but have been subject to scrutiny for their potential impact on civil liberties and human rights.
Critics argue that such laws may lead to the erosion of due process rights and the targeting of
political dissenters or minority groups.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Terrorism_Act_(Canada)#:~:text=The%20Anti%2Dterrorism%20Act%20(Fr
ench,%2C%20as%20Bill%20C%2D36.

10
Michelle S. Sample. (2008). Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Act: Creating a Paradigm of Inseurity?. Simon Fraser
University, 10-11. https://summit.sfu.ca/item/9023

18
These international legislations, UAPA in India, frequently fall short of international human
rights standards and norms. They grant broad and vaguely defined powers to authorities, that
permits arbitrary detention, monitoring, and restrictions on basic freedoms without sufficient
judicial oversight or safeguards for individual rights. Provisions for preventive detention, the
designation of individuals or organizations as terrorists without due process, and undermining
the principles of presumption of innocence, fair trial, and the right to defense. Furthermore,
these laws may disproportionately target marginalized communities, political dissenters,
minority groups, leading to discrimination and violations of the right to equality and
non-discrimination as enshrined in International human rights instruments.

Abuse of Provisions of the UAPA:

The act has several provisions that are abused or are prone to abuse.

Broad definition of “Terrorist Act”: The act has a broad definition of section 15. It has been
argues that this leaves room for the arbitrary interpretation of what constitutes a terrorist act,
this might lead to the misuse of the law to target individuals engaged in legitimate political
dissent or activism.

Designation of Individuals as Terrorist: Section 35 and 36A of UAPA grant the Central
Government the authority to designate individuals as terrorists and to add organizations to the
list of banned entities. This provision lacks adequate safeguards and due process, this might
allow the arbitrary targeting of individuals and groups.

Section 2(1)(o) r/w Section 13 of the UAPA: The petitioner11 were charged under this
provisions which was later on challenged in the Apex court, for having effect on the freedom
of speech and right to personal liberty. Because the term ‘Unlawful Activity’ had an
overwhelmingly wide ambit granting discretion to the executive.12

11
https://www.scobserver.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/REDACTED_Tripura-WP.pdf

12
https://lawandotherthings.com/explainer-constitutional-challenges-to-uapa/

19
Bail Provision: Section 43D(5) imposes significant hurdles for individuals accused of
offences under the Act to secure bail. 13 The provision required the Court to deny bail of there
were reasonable grounds to believe that the case against the accused was prima facie true.
The Court’s ruling in NIA v. Zahoor Ahmed Shah Watali (2020) has made the grant of bail
almost impossible.14 We will discuss about such case laws in the next chapter in detail.

Sections 43A - 43F, were added in amendment of 2008. This exceedingly changed the
cardinal principles of criminal justice system in India as provided in the Criminal Procedure
Code. The 2008 UAPA Amendment Act inserted Section 43A “Power to arrest, search, etc.”
while Section 43C introduced statutory prohibition on the application of the relevant
provisions of the CrPC in respect of “all arrests, searches and seizures made under this Act”,
and Section 43D(1) made all offences punishable under this Act “cognizable offence” Section
43D(2)(a) extended the statutory pre-trial detention of a person arrested under the Act from
15 days to 30 days to 90 days while section 43D(2)(b) empowered the court to extend the
detention of the accused form 90 days to 180 days if it is satisfied with the report of the
Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reason for the
detention and Section 43D(5) took away the discretion provided to the Court or judge under
chapter XXXIII of the
CrPC with regard to bail. Section 43E reversed the burden of the prosecution to prove the
guilt of the accused provided under the CrPC to the accused arrested under the UAPA to
prove his/her innocence with respect to certain offences. The presumption of guilt of the
accused is a statutory requirement until proven innocent on conclusion of the trial.15

This leads to situations where individuals, even those with weak or fabricated case against
them, are denied bail, effectively resulting in pre-trial detention that exceeds reasonable
limits. Such prolonged detention without bail not only undermines the presumption of

13
https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/200831032015_0.pdf

14

https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/supreme-court-must-use-cases-pending-against-uapa-to-exam
ine-its-scope-8452013/

15
https://www.india.gov.in/unlawful-activities-prevention-amendment-act-2008

20
innocence but also curtails the right to liberty and fair trial, this raises concerns about the
abuse of power and violations of fundamental rights in administration of justice under UAPA.

21
 Chapter 3: Judicial Approach

The research scholar in this chapter aims to look into the judicial landscape surrounding the
UAPA, researcher will examine landmark cases that have shaped legal precedents,
constitutional principles, and procedural methods. Through an analysis of these cases,
researcher will explore how courts have struggled with complex legal and moral questions
while balancing the imperatives of national security with the protection of civil liberties and
human rights.

3.1 UNION OF INDIA V. K.A NAJEEB:16

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The prosecution claims that Professor T.J. Joseph created a Malayalam question paper for the
second semester of the BCom exam at Newman College, Thodupuzha, which offended some
members of the public, especially those who practise a particular religion. The respondent
and additional PFI members demanded reprisals for what they considered to be blasphemy.
They attacked Professor Joseph on July 4, 2010, at approximately eight in the morning, as he
was making his way home from a local church where he had attended Sunday mass with his
mother and sister. The victim was brutally attacked by PFI members who used choppers,
knives, and a small axe to forcibly intercept his car, restrain him, and severe his right palm.
They also threw bombs manufactured locally at onlookers in an attempt to scare them away
from aiding the victim.

Thus, in accordance with Sections 143, 147, 148, 120-B, 341, 427, 323, 324, 326, 506 Part II,
307, 149 IPC; and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, the professor's wife filed a
First Information Report (FIR) against the attackers. As a result of the investigation, it was
discovered that the attack on Professor T.J. Joseph was a component of a carefully
thought-out plot that included hazardous weapons, multiple failed attempts, and extensive
preplanning. As a result, the police charged a number of people, including the current
16
UNION OF INDIA VS K.A. NAJEEB (2021) 3 SCC 713

22
respondent. The respondent was charged under Sections 16, 18, 18-B, 19, and 20 of the
Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and Sections 153-A, 201, 202, and 212 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) on the grounds that he was a major conspirator.

The respondent, however, escaped capture and was labelled an absconder; as a result, his trial
was held apart from that of the other conspirators. The Special Court, NIA, found the
co-accused guilty after they were given separate trials. They were consequently given
cumulative sentences that ranged from two to eight years of hard labour behind bars. The
National Investigation Agency (NIA) filed charges against the respondent after their arrest on
April 10, 2015. He requested bail six times between 2015 and 2019, but each time it was
denied because of evidence linking him to the offence under the UAPA. But in May 2019, the
High Court granted him bail, citing the National Investigation Agency Act of 2008's
requirement for an expedited process and the trial's delay.

JUDICIAL DECISION:

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, while striking the balance between the
appellant’s right to present evidence to prove the charges and the respondent’s rights
guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. The Defendant’s right to present evidence and
establish their allegations beyond reasonable doubt was recognized in line with Part III of the
Constitution. The appellant’s Special Leave Petition was considered unstainable.

The Court emphasized that when considering the legislative policy against the bail, the strict
provisions can be relaxed if there is little likelihood of completing the trial within a
reasonable time and the period of incarceration has already exceeded a significant portion of
the prescribed sentence.

In this instance, the court have the authority to grant bail in the event that the accused’s
constitutional rights are violated, even though the NIA found the accused to be guilty prima
facie and section 43D(5) of the UAPA allowing bail denial. The Supreme Court upheld the
High Court’s ruling after the court determined that there had been an infringement on the
‘right to speedy trial’.

23
ANALYSIS:

This judgement by the Supreme Court can be seen as a ray of justice for several accused
arrested under the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

Strong contentions were presented from the both sides. Additional Solicitor General argued
for the appellant stating that the High Court erred in granting bail without adverting to the
statutory rigours of Section 43D(5) of UAPA. Relying upon judgement in NIA v. Zahoor
Ahmed Shah Watali17, it was highlighted that bail proceedings under the special enactment
were distinct and the courts are duty-bound to refuse bail where the suspect is prima facie
believed to be guilty.

Senior counsel appearing for the respondent contended that given how the respondent has
already suffered incarceration of almost five-and-a-half years without the trial having even
started, it would violate his constitutional liberty and rights to have him serve most of his
sentence without any adjudication of guilt by a judicial authority.

Furthermore, while the court upheld the constitutional validity of the UAPA provisions in
question, questions lingered about their compatibility with international human rights
standards, particularly regarding freedom of association and expression. The case highlighted
the need for stringent safeguards and judicial scrutiny to prevent the misuse of anti-terrorism
laws and ensure that fundamental rights are not unduly curtailed in the pursuit of national
security objectives

Section 43D(5) of UAPA gives the state the prerogative to deny bail whenever it deemed
necessary. The standard of what is ‘necessary’ is so low that it is prone to misuse and the
blatant abuse of power by investigative agencies.

The provisions of the act have often been used as a weapon by state prosecutors, this makes
almost impossible for the accused under UAPA to get bail.

According to the official government data, of all accused arrested under the UAPA, only few
percent ends up being convicted or acquitted by the courts. the present case is a telling of this
fact. Due to this many under-trial custodians are arrested and sent behind bars for years, while

17
(2019) 5 SCC 1.

24
the trial drags on and the investigative agencies take an unreasonable amount of time for
examining witnesses and all other procedures.

The next case shows that how a person accused under the UAPA suffers because of the denial
of bail invoking Sections 43D(2) and (5) of the UAPA even in cases of life threatening
medical conditions.

3.2 BHIMA KOREGAON CASE18

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Every year, thousands of dalits gather at the Victory Pillar in Bhima Koregaon to
commemorate the historical battle of Bhima Koregaon fought in 1818, where Mahar Dalits
fought alongside the British against the Peshwa regime, seen as oppressive to Dalits.

On December 31,2017, an event called Elgar Parishad was organised in Pune by various
social groups and activists to commemorate the bicentenary of Bhima Koregaon battle. The
Elgar Parishad event saw speeches and performances by prominent Dalit rights activists,
intellectuals, and social leaders.

The next day, on January 1,2018, violence erupted in and around Bhima Koregaon during the
commemoration event. Several vehicles were burnt, and clashes broke out between groups
allegedly supporting and opposing the Elgar Parishad event.

The Pune police alleged that the Elgar Parishad event was organized by individuals with links
to Maoist groups and that the violence at Bhima Koregaon was part of a larger conspiracy to
create unrest and overthrow the government.

On January 2, 2018, a local resident named Anita Sawale filed a First Information Report
(FIR) against Milind Ekbote and Sambhaji Bhide, identified as Hindu extremist leaders. As a
18
Romila Thapar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 753: 2018 SCC Online SC 1691: AIR 2018 SC 4683

25
result of the violence that took place as many as 22 FIRs were registered in connection with
the incident, with one of them implicating Mr. Dhawale and members of the Kabir Kala
Manch (KKM) activist group.

This violence subsequently spread to other cities in western Maharashtra. In response, Dalit
organisations called for a Bandh and even organised protest rallies on January 3, which
resulted in a harsh crackdown by the police. In Mumbai alone, more than 300 Dalits, some as
young as 14 years old, were arrested.

STAN SWAMY :

Stan Swamy, a well known advocate for the rights of Adivasis in Jharkhand, was arrested by
NIA in connection with the Bhima Koregaon Elgar Parishad Case. The NIA alleged that
Swamy was involved in activities promoting the ideology of Maoist groups and was part of a
larger conspiracy to incite violence and subvert the state.

Swamy, who suffered from Parkinson’s disease, faced health issues while in custody, raising
concerns about his well-being and access to medical care. Despite appeals for bail on medical
grounds, Swamy’s requests were repeatedly denied, and he passed away in July 2021 while
awaiting Trial. Reports have suggested he was ill treated in jail. For instance, the authorities
were allegedly slow to provide him with a sipper bottle and a straw to drink water – his
disease prevented him from drinking from a glass – and adequate medical care.19

It can be seen from this instance that the arrest exemplified the misuse of anti-terrorism laws
to target activists and dissenters, particularly those advocating for the rights of marginalized
communities.

This case has brought attention to the challenges faced by activists and human rights
defenders, which highlights the need for greater protection of fundamental freedoms and the
rule of law.

19

https://www.telegraphindia.com/jharkhand/bhima-koregaon-maoist-conspiracy-case-stan-swamys-custody-death
-a-stain-forever/cid/1856620

26
ANALYSIS:

The arrests of all the people in BK-16 case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act
(UAPA) raised serious questions about the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation to stifle dissent
and target advocates of human rights. The powers granted to the authority under UAPA,
including provisions for preventive detention and the admissibility of secret evidence, the
arbitrary detention of individuals without due process, can be clearly abused by the
authorities to use them as weapon.

Swamy’s deteriorating health condition during his time in custody, and his advanced age and
underlying medical conditions, showed the failure of authorities to uphold his right to health
and access to medical care. Despite repeated appeals for bail on humanitarian grounds,
Swamy’s requests were denied. This highlighted systemic flaws in the judicial process and
the denial of basic rights to individuals accused under anti-terrorism laws.

The Bhima Koregaon case has been widely criticized as part of a broader pattern of state
repression against dissenting voices and marginalized communities in India. The targeting of
activists, intellectuals, and human rights defenders, many of whom belong to Dalit, Adivasi,
and minority communities, reflects a deliberate attempt to silence voices advocating for
social justice, equality, and accountability.

he use of draconian laws and heavy-handed tactics to suppress dissent not only undermines
democratic principles but also creates a climate of fear and intimidation, hindering the work
of grassroots organizations and advocacy groups.

3.3. MUKESH & ORS. V. STATE OF TRIPURA & ORS.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

On 14th October 2021, during Dura Puja, there was widespread reporting of violence against
Hindu Minorities in Bangladesh on account of blasphemy. The political right wing forces in

27
State of Tripura reacted to thus situation and started committing acts of violence against
Muslim minorities within the state. The protests in Tripura took a violent turn, when mosques
and muslim owned property were damaged and subjected to arson.

The Union Home Ministry rebuked reports about this violence and denied the existence of
any communal violence in Tripura. On November 13th it made a statement denying any
claims or reports of mosques being damaged and vandalised.

Two lawyers Mukesh Kumar and Ansar Indori, affiliated with the Peoples Union For Civil
Liberties and the National Confederation of Human Rights respectively, investigated the
violence as part of an independent fact-finding team. They released a report whose findings
sharply contradict the MHA’s statement. The report found that at least 12 mosques, 9 shops
and 3 houses were targeted during the violent protests. Further, it argued that the communal
incidents could have been prevented if the State police and other agencies handled the
situation better.

On November 3rd, the Tripura police charged the two lawyers under Section 13 of
the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, (UAPA) that punishes individuals who commit or
aid the commitment of any ‘unlawful activity’ as defined under Section 2(1)(o) of the UAPA.
These charges, the police claimed, were slapped on the journalists for their posts on social
media regarding the incident. The police alleged that these posts promoted enmity between
religious groups and provoked people of different religious communities to cause a ‘breach of
peace’. 20

Mukesh and Ansar were not alone, many other people were charged under the same law for
their social media posts, and many of them were journalists and activists. People condemned
the charges stating that the state government was using the UAPA to supress reporting on the
communal violence in the state.

TIMELINE IN SC:21

20
https://www.scobserver.in/cases/uapa-charges-related-to-tripura-violence/

21
https://www.scobserver.in/cases/uapa-charges-related-to-tripura-violence/

28
Mukesh, Ansar and a journalist, Mr. Shyam Meera Singh who was also charged under the
UAPA for tweeting ‘Tripura is Burning’, had filed a petition in the Supreme Court which was
mentioned by Advocate Prashant Bhushan before ex CJI N.V. Ramana on November 11th
2021.

On 17th November, a special bench comprising ex-CJI Ramana and Justice D.Y Chandrachud
and Surya Kant heard the matter and ordered the Tripura Police to not take any coercive
action against the petitioners. 22

On 15th February, 2024, the petitioners informed division bench that they would like to
withdraw their petition and approach the High Court instead. The bench allowed the
petitioners to withdraw.

ANALYSIS:

In this case, the right to freedom of speech and expression, which is a fundamental right, was
breach profoundly. The FIR were against freedom of speech and expression. From the facts
of the case it is clear that the petitioners were only shedding lights on the issue that was
happening in the state how the government has failed to protect the minority and their rights.

In the petition it was contended that:-

It is submitted that the impugned definition of ‘unlawful actvities’ prohibits an innocuous
speech by threat of punishment. It casts a ‘wide net’ on freedom of speech and expression and
makes even possession of documentational literature, reporting of information, expression of
ideas, thoughts, and discussions which are no threat to security of India and have no
tendency to create public disorder punishable under Section 13 of the Act. The overbroad
language of the section leaves open the possibility that the person criticising measures of
government or acts of public officials, might also come within the ambit of the penal section.

22
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2021/27345/27345_2021_1_303_31436_Order_17-Nov-2021.pdf

29
Further, the impugned section abridges the right to free speech and expression in the absence
of tangible and proximate harm.23

It can be inferred by the facts and FIRs that the authorities completely misused and abused
their power define the few clauses of the UAPA in their way to kill the dissent. They
criminalised the act of ‘Fact Finding’ and ‘Reporting’.

The social media posts and the fact finding report by no stretch of imagination were intended
to disregard sovereignty and territorial integrity of India that may amount to unlawful
activities as defined in The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. There was no
mentioning in social media posts or report of overthrowing the government by unlawful
means. The social media posts report merely drew attention to the violence that took place in
the state. Just because of this absurd definition of unlawful activity in the act, there were FIRs
made out against them.

This creates deterrent effect on freedom of speech and expression which is a fundamental
right of every citizen.

Here the pattern can be seen that the state has criminalised the act of reporting and fact
finding, and that too under the stringent provision of UAPA in which the idea bail is remotely
impossible in many circumstances. Due to this the only facts that will come in the public will
be those that are convenient to the state. This is due to the effect on the freedom of speech
and expression of members of civil society.

These kind of circumstances affect the foundations of a participative democratic society as it

restricts ‘free flow of information and ideas’ and no real or inconvenient facts will be
available to the public for the citizens to demand action from the state where there have been
flaws and shortcomings on their part.

23
https://www.scobserver.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/REDACTED_Tripura-WP.pdf

30
3.4. UMAR KHALID v. STATE OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY
OF DELHI

Facts of the case:

In this case, the FIR came to be registered by the Crime Branch on 06.03.2020, alleging that
the riots which took place in Delhi in 2020 were the result of a preplanned conspiracy
between Umar Khalid and his associates from different organisations, who have planned and
carried out the said conspiracy which culminated in the said Riots.24

It has been alleged that Umar Khalid had made provocative speeches at different locations
and made an appeal to people to come out and block the streets, during the visit of US
President Donald Trump, to publicize, at an international level, that minorities were being
targeted and discriminated against in India.

In November 2020, the Delhi High Court took cognisance of a charge sheet (FIR 59/2020)
filed by the Delhi Police accusing Umar Khalid and fellow activist Sharjeel Imam of
conspiring and instigating the 2020 Delhi Riots, which took place during the protests against
the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019. Later, in October 2020, the Delhi Police filed another
FIR (FIR 101/2020) pertaining to vandalism and arson in Northeast Delhi’s Khajuri Khas.
The police claimed that there was proof of Khalid’s involvement with other accused persons
in the case.25

Umar khalid has consistently denied the charges against him, asserting that he was being
targeted for his vocal opposition to government policies his activism on issues related to
minority rights. He stated that his speeches were peaceful and aimed at raising awareness
about discriminatory laws.

24
Umar Khalid v. State of National Capital Territory of Delhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3423

25
https://www.scobserver.in/journal/umar-khalid-at-the-delhi-high-court/

31
JUDICIAL DECISION:26

In an appeal, seeking setting aside of impugned order passed by sessions judge, whereby
Umar Khalid’s bail application was dismissed, the division bench of Delhi High Court
observed that the allegations against Umar Khalid are “prima facie true” and hence, the
embargo created by Section 43D(5) of UAPA applies squarely regarding the consideration of
grant of bail to him. Thus, his application seeking regular bail was rejected.

The court referred to the decision in NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali27 and viewed hat as
the charge sheet has been filed under offence punishable under section 16, 17, 18 of the
UAPA, which are part of Chapter IV, thus the present case will be covered by stringent
conditions for grant of bail in sub-section (5) of Section 43D. Further, by virtue of the proviso
to subsection (5), the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing
that the accusation against the accused is prima facie true, which means that the
materials/evidence collated by the investigating agency in reference to the accusation in the
FIR, must prevail until contradicted or disproved by other evidence, and on face of it, shows
the involvement of such accused in the commission of the offence.

Thus, the Court observed that its prima facie appears to be a premeditated conspiracy for
causing disruptive chakka-jam and preplanned protests at different planned sites in Delhi,
which was engineered to escalate to confrontational chakka-jam and incitement to violence
and culminate in riots in natural course. Further, the protest planned was “not a typical
protest” normal in political culture or democracy, but one far more destructive and injurious,
geared towards extremely grave consequences. Thus, as per the pre-meditated plan there was
an intentional blocking of roads to cause inconvenience and disruption of the essential
services to the life of community residing in North-East Delhi, creating thereby panic and an
alarming sense of insecurity. The attack on police personnel by women protesters in front
only followed by other ordinary people and engulfing the area into a riot is the epitome of
such premediated plan and as such the same would prima facie be covered by the definition
of ‘terrorist act.’

26
Umar Khalid v. State of National Capital Territory of Delhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3423

27
NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1

32
ANALYSIS:

The court’s reliance on the “Prima facie true” nature of allegations against Umar Khalid to
reject his bail application shows the stringent conditions imposed by Section 43D(5) of the
UAPA. While the court is required to consider the prima facie truth of the accusations, it
raises concerns about the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof, particularly in
cases involving special enactments like the UAPA.

The judgement raises concerns about its potential impact on freedom of expression and
dissent in India. Such actions risk stifling legitimate forms of protest and political dissent,
which undermines democratic principles and constitutional rights.28

The Supreme Court has repeatedly called for expeditious bail hearings to safeguard the
fundamental right to life and liberty, but three years and three months after he was arrested,
political activist Umar Khalid is incarcerated without bail or trial. His bail petition has been
bouncing between different judges of the country’s highest court with no hearing of
arguments despite the case being listed 10 times over seven months. In addition to delaying
tactics by the State, adjournments and scheduling conflicts, violation of the rules on how
cases are assigned to judges further delay the proceedings.29

There have been only waiting from one date to another, Eventually Khalid withdrew his
petition from the Supreme Court “due to change in circumstance.” Sibal, appearing or Khalid,
said that he would try his luck in a trial court.30

28
https://www.scobserver.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Umar-Khalid-Bail-Rejection-Judgment.pdf

29

https://article-14.com/post/2023-the-year-imprisoned-political-activist-umar-khalid-was-not-heard-by-the-supre
me-court--65791f597efad

30
https://www.scobserver.in/journal/umar-khalid-at-the-delhi-high-court/

33
 Chapter 4: Analysis of Data

The National Crimes Record Bureau (NCRB) under the Ministry of Home Affairs began
recording the cases registered under the UAPA 1967 under a separate head from 2014. It will
provide testimonies on how the UAPA have been abused.

Sl. No. State/UT 2018 - 2018 - 2019 - 2019 - 2020 - 2020 -

PAR PCV PAR PCV PAR PCV

1 Andhra Pradesh 8 0 5 0 4 0

2 Arunachal Pradesh 10 0 40 0 3 0

3 Assam 170 0 112 0 49 0

4 Bihar 59 0 35 0 39 0

5 Chhattisgarh 4 0 32 0 27 0

6 Goa 0 0 0 0 0 0

7 Gujarat 0 0 1 0 0 0

8 Haryana 0 0 0 0 1 0

9 Himachal Pradesh 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 Jharkhand 97 21 202 17 69 3

11 Karnataka 0 0 6 0 2 0

12 Kerala 6 0 25 0 24 0

13 Madhya Pradesh 13 0 4 0 0 0

14 Maharashtra 0 0 0 0 7 0

15 Manipur 332 0 386 0 225 0

16 Meghalaya 6 0 0 0 2 0

17 Mizoram 0 0 0 0 0 0

34
18 Nagaland 10 1 18 0 7 0

19 Odisha 0 0 5 0 0 0

20 Punjab 27 0 30 0 44 0

21 Rajasthan 0 0 0 0 0 0

22 Sikkim 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 Tamil Nadu 15 0 308 0 92 21

24 Telangana 0 0 5 0 0 0

25 Tripura 0 0 0 0 2 0

26 Uttar Pradesh 479 12 498 17 361 54

27 Uttarakhand 0 0 0 0 0 0

28 West Bengal 0 0 0 0 5 0

Total Total State(S) 1236 34 1712 34 963 78

State(S)

29 Andaman and Nicobar 0 0 0 0 0 0

Islands

30 Chandigarh 0 0 0 0 0 0

31 Dadra and Nagar Haveli and 0 0 0 0 0 0

Daman and Diu

32 Delhi 8 1 9 0 12 0

33 Jammu and Kashmir 177 0 227 0 346 2

34 Ladakh NA NA NA NA 0 0

35 Lakshadweep 0 0 0 0 0 0

36 Puducherry 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Total UT(S) 185 1 236 0 358 2

UT(S)

35
 Total Total (All India) 1421 35 1948 34 1321 80
(All
India)

4.1: TABLE SHOWING YEAR WISE NUMBER OF PERSONS ARRESTED AND THE
NUMBER OF PERSONS CONVICTED UNDER THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES
(PREVENTION) ACT, 1967 (UAPA) FROM 2018 TO 2020.31

ANALYSIS:

The total number of person arrested under the UAPA increased from 1,421 in 2018 to 1,948
in 2019, before decreasing in 1,321 in 2020. Similarly, the total number of persons convicted
increased from 35 in 2018 to 34 in 2019, before rising sharply to 80 in 2020.

States like Jharkhand, Manipur, and Uttar Pradesh consistently reported higher numbers of
arrests compared to other states across all three years. Jharkhand, in particular, witnessed a
significant increase in both arrests and convictions in 2019, followed by decrease in 2020.

Delhi and Jammu & Kashmir stand out among the UTs, reporting higher numbers of arrests
compared to other UTs. The data shows a significant increase in arrests in J&K from 2018 to
2020, possibly due to security concerns and the situation in the region.

This data on arrests and conviction under the UAPA, reveals a concerning trend wherein
arrests are made seemingly without due consideration or meticulous scrutiny, while the
process of conviction and acquittal often stretches over extended periods, shows the misuse
of the law. The substantial time taken for case to progress through the system, which might
lead to either conviction or acquittal, raises questions about efficiency of investigations, the
quality of evidence presented, and the overall administrative and judicial system. Accused

31

https://data.gov.in/resource/year-wise-number-persons-arrested-and-number-persons-convicted-under-unlawful-
activities

36
under this act often remain in custody for very long periods with no timely conducting of
trial. This is harmful to the fundamental rights of an individual.

Year No. of Cases No. of Persons No. of Persons No. of Persons

Registered Under-trial Convicted Acquitted

2016 922 3047 24 19

2017 901 4098 39 42

2018 1182 4862 35 117

2019 1226 5645 34 92

2020 796 6482 80 116

4.2: YEAR-WISE CASE REGISTERED, PESONS UNDER TRIAL, PERSONS

CONVICTED, PERSONS ACQUITTED UNDER UNLAWFUL ACTIVITES
(PREVENTION) ACT, 1967 (UAPA) FROM 2016 TO 2020.32

ANALYSIS:

The number of case registered increased from 2016 to 2019, with the highest number of case
registered (1,226) registered in 2019. In 2020, the number of cases registered dropped to 796,
which could be due to COVID-19 pandemic or may be due to other circumstances.

The number of persons under trial consistently increased from 2016 to 2020, this indicates a
huge backlog in the judicial system. The highest number of persons under-trial (6,482) was
recorded in 2020.

32

https://data.gov.in/resource/stateuts-wise-number-cases-registered-under-trials-convicted-and-acquitted-under-u
nlawful

37
The number of persons convicted fluctuated over the years, with an increase in 2020 when 80
persons were convicted, which is the highest among the given years. The conviction rate
seems to be relatively low compared to number of cases registered and persons under-trial.

The number of persons acquitted varied from year to year, with the highest number (117)
being recorded in 2018.

Overall, the data suggests a particular trend, where there is an increase in number of cases
registered and persons under-trial, indicating a backlog in the judicial system. The conviction
and acquittal rates seems to be relatively low compared to the number of cases and persons
under-trial.

The data showed worrying trend of increasing number of persons being held under-trial for
extended periods under the UAPA. From 2016 to 2020, the number of under-trial person has
more than doubled. This raises concerns of potential violation of fundamental right to life and
personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Extended Incarceration
without a speedy trial contravenes the legal principles of natural justice and presumption of
innocence until proven guilty.

The low conviction rate of 24-80 per year compared to the high under-trial figures shows that
many individuals may be having their liberty curtailed unreasonably under stringent
provisions of the UAPA.

The ability to detain individuals for extended periods without substantial evidence under the
UAPA potentially impinges on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by
Article-19. He vaguely worded definitions of “unlawful activities” have allowed
indiscriminate use of the draconian legislation against dissidents, human rights activists,
journalists and minority groups. The criminalization of ideology and intent rather than overt
acts through the UAPA amendments erodes the foundational principles of respect for human
rights and civil liberties. The data shows that how the UAPA is prone to misuse and
disproportionately harsh implementation against underprivileged sections of the society.
Without legal safeguards and oversight, such preventive detention laws can become a tool of
state repression against voices of dissent, thereby violating the democratic freedoms
enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

38
 Sl. No. State/UT CR CNF CF

1 Andhra Pradesh 1 NA 1

2 Assam 1 1 NA

3 Bihar 2 2 NA

4 Chhattisgarh 2 2 NA

5 Delhi 4 4 NA

6 Jammu and Kashmir 7 5 2

7 Jharkhand 4 2 2

8 Kerala 2 1 1

9 Maharashtra 1 1 NA

10 Manipur 4 3 1

11 Punjab 7 5 2

12 Tamil Nadu 4 NA 4

13 Telangana 1 NA 1

14 Uttar Pradesh 2 1 1

15 West Bengal 1 1 NA

Total Total 43 28 15

4.3: State/UTs-wise Cases Registered by NIA under sedition or Unlawful Activities

(Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) or both (CR) Cases in which charge-sheets have not been
filed (CNF), and cases in which charge-sheets filed (CF) as on 13-12-202133

33

https://data.gov.in/resource/stateuts-wise-cases-registered-nia-under-sedition-or-unlawful-activities-prevention-a
ct

39
The data shows that the NIA has registered a total of 43 cases under sedition or UAPA across
15 states/UTs as of given date. The states/UTs with the highest number of cases registered
are, Jammu and Kashmir (7 cases), Punjab (7 cases), Delhi (4 cases), Jharkhand (4 cases),
Manipur (4 cases), Tamil Nadu (4 cases). These states/UTs account for 30 out of 43 total
cases registered, which is approximately 70% of the cases.

Out of these total cases registered, many of them did not have charge-sheets filed as of given
date. Only few proportion of cases had charge sheets filed as of December 13, 2021.

The registration of cases under sedition law and the UAPA signifies the use of stringent laws
by the NIA to deal with offences related to activities deemed unlawful. These laws are often
criticised for their potential misuse and curtailment of civil liberties, in this scenario
particularly freedom of speech and expression.

This data also reveals a pendency in the case registered, with a large number of cases not
having charge sheets filed as pf the given date. This indicates delays in investigation process,
which leads to prolonged periods before charges are framed.

HUMAN RIGHTS ANALYSIS:

According to the Amnesty International report 2022/23 on Human Rights in India, several
arbitrary arrests and detention took place in the year 2022-2023. The report provided with the
arrests and detentions that took place all over India in these years.

Mass raids were carried out against the NGO Popular Front of India (PFI) and its affiliates
across India. More than 300 of PFI’s senior leaders and members were arrested. Then, even
though no charges were made against those who were detained and no trials were held, The
Ministry of Home Affairs declared PFI to be an “unlawful association” under the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), a counterterrorism law, due to its purported involvement
in the “funding of terrorism and terrorist activities”.

The report also mentioned that the government cracked down on the dissenters by doing
arbitrary arrests, that also without following due process, under this law.

40
Jignesh Mevani, an independent Dalit member of the Gujarat Legislative Assembly, was
detained again after he was granted bail by a court in the State of Assam. His first arrest
occurred after he made a tweet urging Prime Minister Narendra Modi to keep Gujarat
peaceful in the face of religious violence.

Prominent human rights advocate Teesta Setalvad, along with former law Police officers
Sanjeev Bhatt and RB Sreekumar, were taken into custody by the authorities on allegations of
evidence fabrication and forgery. The accusations seemed to be retaliation for their assistance
to Gujarat riot victims in 2002.

Mohammed Zubair, one of the founders of ALT News, an independent fact-checking

platform, was detained by New Delhi police on charges of "hurting religious sentiments" and
"promoting enmity" through his Twitter posts. The arrest was reportedly linked to his
outspoken criticism of discrimination against minority communities and his condemnation of
heightened censorship measures.

Police apprehended Javed Mohammed, a human rights advocate, along with his wife,
daughter, and several others, on suspicion of being the principal instigators behind the
communal unrest that erupted in Prayagraj, a city located in the Uttar Pradesh state of India.

In the report there were instances mentioned which showed prolonged detention and other
occasions where it was clear that the law was used as weapon and arbitrary arrests were
made.

Eleven individuals, including human rights activists, academics, and members of cultural
groups, remain detained without trial in Maharashtra state under the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act (UAPA). Among them are academics Shoma Sen and Hany Babu, tribal
rights activist Mahesh Raut, poet Sudhir Dhawale, lawyer Surendra Gadling, and civil rights
activists Rona Wilson, Arun Ferreira, and Vernon Gonsalves. Additionally, three members of
the cultural group Kabir Kala Manch – Ramesh Gaichor, Jyoti Jagtap, and Sagar Gorkhe –
are also held in detention. These individuals were arrested between 2018 and 2020 by the
National Investigation Agency (NIA), India's primary counterterrorism agency, over their
alleged involvement in violence during the Bhima Koregaon celebrations near Pune in 2018.

41
This ongoing detention underscores concerns regarding due process, human rights, and the
use of anti-terrorism laws in India.

Numerous Muslim students, councillors, and human rights activists remain detained without
trial under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for their alleged involvement in
orchestrating religious violence in Delhi in February 2020. The unrest resulted in the deaths
of at least 53 individuals, predominantly Muslims.

Siddique Kappan, a journalist, along with three others, continues to be held in detention
under charges of sedition and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Kappan was
arrested in October 2020 while en route to Hathras District in Uttar Pradesh to cover the
tragic incident of a young Dalit woman's gang rape and murder. This arrest has raised
concerns regarding press freedom and the use of stringent laws to suppress dissent and hinder
journalists' ability to report on critical issues.34

INTERVIEW:

To have proper opinions on this subject by the people in profession who might have worked
on these kind of cases, the researcher took an interview of 5 Advocates, 1 Retired Judge, and
1 public prosecutor.

The interviews were conducted remotely via phone or video call due to the interviewees
residing in different cities. Prior arrangements were made, including scheduling, and ensuring
technical readiness. Detailed notes were taken, and data was securely stored for analysis.

Questions:

These were the questions that were presented before the interviewees.

1. What are your concerns, if any, regarding the potential misuse or abuse of the UAPA
by authorities?

34
https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/asia-and-the-pacific/south-asia/india/report-india/

42
 2. How can the law be modified or reformed to address these concerns while
maintaining national security?
3. What safeguards or accountability measures would you recommend to prevent the
arbitrary use of the UAPA?
4. Do you have any other suggestions or insights regarding the UAPA and its
implementation?

ANALYSIS:

The group of interviewees comprised of five advocates, one retired judge, and one public
prosecutor. Three of the five advocates had almost similar answers and opinions on this. 2 of
the advocates were found out not very well aware of this law, they had idea but were not.
Able to comprehend more about this subject. The retired judge gave great insights on this law
that how the abuse or arbitrary use of this law can be curbed. And also how the amendment
can bring out the changes necessary to this law. The public prosecutor who was interviewed
stated that how the security of the state cannot be compromised by making changes or
lightening the stringent provisions that are necessary for smooth and safe functioning of the
nation.

The public prosecutor emphasized the necessity of laws like the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act (UAPA) for maintaining the security and stability of the state. From his
perspective, the UAPA serves as a crucial tool in combating threats to national security and
ensuring the smooth functioning of the state apparatus. He stated that any changes to the
UAPA could potentially compromise the effectiveness of law enforcement efforts and
weaken the state's ability to address security challenges effectively. In public prosecutor’s
view, preserving the integrity of the UAPA is paramount to safeguarding the interests of the
state and protecting its citizens from various internal and external threats.

Everyone who was interviewed had their views based on their experience they’ve had while
being in a practice as an advocates, being judge of the High Court, and being a public
prosecutor.

43
The researcher will analyse the interviews that were take place by taking each question and
what was the answer and opinion of every interviewee on that particular question.

1. What are your concerns, if any, regarding the potential misuse or abuse of the
UAPA by the authorities?

On the first question, amongst the Advocates it was almost a similar answer. they
stated that there have been many instances were the authorities have misused the
provisions and the individuals who were detain faced problems due to wrongful and
prolonged detention just because the prosecution was not able to present with the
evidence and were not up right with the witnesses. The issues were with the
authorities such as investigating agencies who were not able to investigate and work
on the case and were delaying the trial arbitrarily.

One of the advocates also mentioned that because of the stringent provision of bail
under UAPA, the accused that he was representing for had to stay in the custody for
more than a year just because he was presumed to be an accused and even if the facts
and circumstances were saying a different story.

When this question was asked to the retired judge he mentioned that after the Watali
judgement it got more stricter in terms of giving bail to the accused because it
restricted the defense’s ability to challenge the prosecution’s case effectively, which
undermined the principle of a fair trial. eventually the subsequent judgements such as
in Union of India v. KA Najeeb, the court recognized the importance of balancing the
liberty with the right to speedy trial.

The public prosecutor firmly stood by the stringent provision of the UAPA, which are
essential for safeguarding our nation’s security and maintaining law and order. He
mentioned that the authorities have diligently upheld the law and any perceived
abuses or misuses are just allegations that are made to save certain sections of the
society from getting them prosecuted.

44
2. How can the law be modified or reformed to address this concerns while
maintaining national security?

Based on the interviews, the modifications that can be made in the UAPA are the time
given to the police to file a charge sheet as they have been given 180 days as opposed
to the time given in Criminal Procedure code that is 80 days. The days shouuld be
similar in CrPc and UAPA.

Modification can be also made to the bail provision that is section 43D(5) of the
UAPA that denies bail for certain offences if here are reasonable grounds for
believing that the accusations are on the face of it seem to be true.
Because the court have worn multiple hats decoding UAPA, the act needs to be
modified in a way so that there is balance of liberty and justice.

And also there should be modification on pronouncing someone as a terrorist. the act
was passed for organisations and eventually it shifted towards individuals to and now
through the act the authorities are also targeting political dissents. the vague
definitions of ‘unlawful activity’, ‘terrorist act’ under the Act should be modified.
Because these definitions have somehow included activities such as peaceful protests,
dissenting opinions, and any ideological expressions. The definitions are vague,
subjective and broad.

3. What safeguards or accountability measures would you recommend to prevent

the arbitrary use of the UAPA?

According to the interviews few measures were described by the advocates and a
retired judge. One of the measures shall be to shift the burden of proof. the UAPA law
has changes the normal principle of criminal law by making the accused to prove their
innocence rather than the prosecution to prove their guilt. So the burden of proof
should lie on the prosecution and not on the accused.

Amending the law was one of the measures, such as bail provision, power given to the
authorities and also the definitions under the Act.

45
 There should be a time bound investigations and trial to prevent prolonged pre-trial
detention and delays in the judicial process. And also there should be compensation to
individuals who have been wrongfully detained or charged under the UAPA or due to
its misuse.

4. Do you have any other suggestions or insights regarding the UAPA and its
implementation?

From the answers the researcher got in the interviews, they emphasized on the need to
strike a balance between national security concerns and protection of civil liberties.
Even if the UAPA aims to address security threats, it should not unduly infringe upon
individual’s fundamental rights and freedoms.

There are certain underlying structural issues that contribute to the misuse or abuse of
the UAPA, such as institutional deficiency, and political motivations. There should be
a judicial independence for ensuring the fair and impartial application of law.

There should be an alignment of the provisions and implementation of the UAPA or

any other preventive detention law with international human rights standards and
obligations.

An effective human rights body should be formed for monitoring and evaluating the
impact of the UAPA on individuals, communities, and society as a whole. regular
assessment of the effectiveness of law, as well as its human rights implications should
take place so that it can help balancing the counter terrorism laws.

The public prosecutor stated in this answer that UAPA provides police and
investigating agencies with essential tools and legal mechanisms to investigate,
prevent, and combat acts of terrorism and unlawful activities that pose threat to
national security. The stringent provisions of the UAPA serve as a deterrent against
individuals or groups engaged in subversive activities. The purpose of severe legal
consequences acts as a deterrent, diminishing potential perpetrators from engaging in
unlawful activities.

46
The PP also stated that the preventive measures taken under the UAPA, such as
provision for preventive detention, enables the authorities to actively address
emerging security threats and prevent acts of terrorism before they occur. he also
stated that sometimes detaining political dissenters is wrong but when things goes out
of hand it gets necessary to detain them to prevent riots or hatred between groups.

47
 Chapter V: Conclusion and Suggestions

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) has been the focus of much discussion and
examination, highlighting the precarious balance that must be struck between civil liberties
and national security. The historical development of preventive detention laws in India has
been brought to light by this study, which can be traced back to laws passed during the
colonial era and later amended to address new security threats.

The comparative analysis conducted between the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act
(UAPA) and international counterterrorism laws, in conjunction with human rights standards,
has revealed potential areas of conflict that raise concerns regarding the erosion of due
process rights, the targeting of political dissenters, and the undermining of fundamental
freedoms.

The analysis identified instances where the UAPA's provisions may be incompatible with
established human rights principles, particularly regarding procedural safeguards and fair trial
rights. Concerns have been raised regarding the broad and vague definitions of offenses under
the UAPA, which could lead to arbitrary arrests and detentions without sufficient evidence or
judicial oversight. Moreover, the provisions allowing for prolonged pre-trial detention and
restrictions on bail may result in prolonged deprivation of liberty without adequate recourse
to legal remedies.

The analysis of judicial precedents showed a convoluted picture, with judges struggling to
apply and understand the strict provisions of the UAPA, especially Section 43D(5), which
deals with bail. Courts have acknowledged the need to protect fundamental rights and
guarantee adherence to the principles of due process and fair trial while maintaining the
constitutional validity of the Act.

The analysis of data and case studies exposed concerning trends, such as prolonged pre-trial
detention, low conviction rates, and potential misuse of the Act against dissenting voices,
minority groups, and human rights activists. The vague and broad definitions within the

48
UAPA, coupled with the presumption of guilt and the burden of proof placed on the accused,
have raised concerns about arbitrary arrests and infringement of civil liberties
The government should take a step back, review any significant laws, and confirm that they
are constitutional. A genuine distribution of power is necessary to prevent the oligarchy from
replacing democracy. History demonstrates that human rights violations led to the repeal of
laws like MISA, PDA, and TADA.

Suggestions:

Laws that violate the rights of citizens ought to be repealed. If they aren't repealed, they need
to be updated to reflect modern society and adequately safeguard the rights of the country's
citizens. Instead of being broad and ambiguous, the Act's provisions need to be reorganised
into a more precise and understandable structure. Limiting room for power abuse is
necessary.

More specific laws are required. Because UAPA is so vague, governments can take advantage
of legal loopholes to impose arbitrary rules. Its vague definitions and the capricious character
of certain provisions, like the one pertaining to obtaining bail, in conjunction with the 2019
Amendment Act, which permits the designation of "terrorist" even for private citizens,
provide ample justification for its unconstitutionality. A review of the current legislation
should be deemed urgently necessary, as evidenced by the initial comparisons between its
provisions and those of the POTA and TADA Acts, which were repealed due to legal abuse.

The arbitrary nature of the Act's provisions, as demonstrated by recent rulings from numerous
courts around the nation, highlights the UAPA's inherent flaws that allow for legal abuse. One
popular defence of it has been that it places reasonable limitations on people's ability to
exercise their own rights without infringing on the rights of others. First of all, though, there
is already Article 19(2), which establishes reasonable limitations on the exercise of the right
to freedom. Second, following a fair trial, the courts should determine whether a restriction is
reasonable.

The Act's constitutionality needs to be examined. Its framework needs to be redesigned to fill
in any gaps in the laws without directly or indirectly violating citizens' rights.

49
HYPOSTHESIS – 1: THE UAPA HAS WIDE DISCRETIONARY PROVISIONS
WHICH ARE ARBITRARY AND PRONE TO MISUSE.

Based on the data collected and analysis presented in the study, this hypothesis appears to be
proved. Several instances and findings illustrate the potential misuse or arbitrary application
of the UAPA’s provision.

The broad and vague definitions of terms like “unlawful activities” and “terrorist act” under
the UAPA have led to arbitrary interpretations and targeting of individuals engaged in
legitimate political dissent, activism, or ideological expression (as discussed in Chapter 2)

The data on arrests and convictions under the UAPA (Tables 4.1 and 4.2 in Chapter 4) reveals
a concerning trend wherein a large number of arrests are made, while the conviction rate
remains relatively low. This suggests that the UAPA may be used indiscriminately to detain
individuals without sufficient evidence or due process.

The analysis of specific cases, such as the Bhima Koregaon case (Chapter 3.2) and the
Tripura violence case (Chapter 3.3), highlights instances where the UAPA has been invoked
against human rights activists, journalists, and individuals engaged in fact-finding or
reporting, seemingly to suppress dissent and curtail freedom of speech and expression.

The interviews conducted with legal professionals (Chapter 4) further corroborate concerns
about the misuse or abuse of the UAPA's provisions, particularly in relation to prolonged
pre-trial detention, denial of bail, and the presumption of guilt placed on the accused.

The Amnesty International report (Chapter 4) cites instances of arbitrary arrests, detentions,
and the use of the UAPA against dissenting voices, minority groups, and human rights
activists, further substantiating concerns about the misuse of the Act.

The study presents substantial evidence and analysis indicating that the UAPA grants broad
discretionary powers to the State, which have been subject to misuse or arbitrary application,

50
particularly in cases involving political dissent, activism, or minority groups. The finding
supports the hypothesis.

HYPOTHESIS – 2: PROVISIONS OF THE UAPA ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THE

RULE OF LAW AND OTHER HUMAN AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.

Based on the data collected and analysis presented in the study, this hypothesis is well
supported. Several instances and findings shows the potential conflict between the UAPA’s
provisions and principles of rule of law, due process, and fundamental rights.

The comparative analysis of the UAPA with international counterterrorism laws and human
rights standards (Chapter 2) reveals potential areas of conflict, particularly regarding
procedural safeguards, fair trial rights, and the targeting of political dissenters.

The instances of prolonged pre-trial detention, as evidenced by the data on the increasing
number of under-trial persons (Table 4.2, Chapter 4), raise concerns about potential violations
of the right to life and personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The Amnesty International report (Chapter 4) cites instances of arbitrary arrests, detentions,
and the use of the UAPA against dissenting voices, minority groups, and human rights
activists, indicating potential conflicts with the right to freedom of speech and expression, as
well as the principles of equality and non-discrimination.

The interviews with legal professionals (Chapter 4) further highlight concerns about the
UAPA's potential infringement on fundamental rights, such as the right to a fair trial, due
process, and the presumption of innocence.

The analysis of cases like the Bhima Koregaon case (Chapter 3.2) and the Tripura violence
case (Chapter 3.3) exemplifies the potential use of the UAPA to criminalize legitimate
dissent, reporting, and fact-finding activities, conflicting with the principles of freedom of
speech and expression.

the study presents substantial evidence and analysis suggesting that the provisions of the
UAPA, particularly those related to bail, pre-trial detention, and the broad definitions of

51
offenses, have the potential to conflict with established principles of the rule of law, due
process, and fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution and international human
rights instruments. The findings proves the hypothesis.
HYPOTHESIS – 3: THE UAPA DOES NOT SERVE THE OBJECT OF ITS
ENACTMENT BUT STIFLING DISSENT.

Based on the data collected and analysis presented in the study, this hypothesis appears to be
proved. Several instances and findings shows that the UAPA does go with objectives of its
enactment and has been used by authorities sometimes as a weapon to stifle dissent.

Majority cases have been come in light that have shown that the people arrested under this act
were mostly human rights activist, political dissents, journalist and people who have probably
no far far connection with the word “Terrorism”.

Several high-profile cases have brought attention to this issue, such as the arrest of former
JNU student leader Umar Khalid under the UAPA in 2020 for his alleged role in the Delhi
riots, despite concerns raised about lack of evidence(Chapter 3). In the Tripura violence case
of 2021, activists and lawyers like Mukesh and Ansar Indori and a journalist, Mr. Shyam
Meera Singh were charged under the UAPA for their social media posts about the communal
violence, which can be seen as an attempt to silence dissent.35

Prominent human rights activists like Sudha Bharadwaj, Gautam Navlakha, and Varavara
Rao were arrested under the UAPA in 2018 for their alleged involvement in the Bhima
Koregaon violence case, despite lack of substantial evidence.

Based on the insights from the interviews, it is evident that while the UAPA serves the
objective of maintaining national security, there are legitimate concerns regarding its impact
on dissent and civil liberties. The disproportionate use of preventive measures and the lack of
accountability mechanisms contribute to a stifling of dissent, undermining the original intent
of the law. Thus, the hypothesis that the UAPA does not serve its intended objectives but
stifles dissent finds support in the perspectives provided by the interviews.

35
https://www.scobserver.in/cases/uapa-charges-related-to-tripura-violence/

52
 References, Bibliography and Webliography

List of statues:
1. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974
2. Constitution of India, 1950
3. Indian Penal Code, 1860
4. Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971
5. National Security Act, 1980
6. Preventive Detention Act, 1950
7. The Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002
8. Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
9. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967

List of Cases:

1. Sajal Awasthi v. Union of India

2. NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1: (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 383
3. K.A. Najeeb v. Union of India, Criminal Appeal No. 659 of 2019.
4. Romila Thapar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 753: 2018 SCC Online SC 1691:
AIR 2018 SC 4683
5. Umar Khalid v. State of National Capital Territory of Delhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del
3423

Books:

1. Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of the nation, OUP (1999).

Webliography:

1. Aayushi Rastogi, Bail under UAPA: Court in review, Supreme Court Observer, (21st
October, 2022) https://www.scobserver.in/journal/bail-under-uapa-court-in-review/

53
2. Balu Nair and Jai Burner, Brief Hisory: challenges to UAPA, Supreme Court
Observer,(11th May, 2020)
https://www.scobserver.in/journal/brief-history-challenges-to-the-uapa/
3. Supreme court must use the pending cases against UAPA to examine its scope, Indian
Express.https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/supreme-court-must-use-c
ases-pending-against-uapa-to-examine-its-scope-8452013/
4. Reading Section 43D(5): How it sets the bar for bail so high under UAPA, Indian
Express:
https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/section-43d5-how-it-sets-the-bar-for-bail-s
o-high-under-uapa-7390673/
5. Surveillance under the USA/PATRIOT Act, ACLU, (23rd October, 2001).
https://www.aclu.org/documents/surveillance-under-usapatriot-act#:~:text=The%20Pa
triot%20Act%2C%20however%2C%20unconstitutionally,the%20search%20has%20b
een%20executed.
6. Honeywood, C. A. (2016). Britain’s Approach to Balancing Counter-Terrorism Laws
with Human Rights. Journal of Strategic Security, 9(3), 28-48.
https://doi.org/26473337
7. Michelle S. Sample. (2008). Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Act: Creating a Paradigm of
Inseurity?. Simon Fraser University, 10-11. https://summit.sfu.ca/item/9023
8. Ishika Garg, Explainer: Constitutional challenges to UAPA| Law and other things
(2ndDecember,2022).https://lawandotherthings.com/explainer-constitutional-challeng
es-to-uapa/
9. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2008.
https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/200831032015_0.pdf
10. Animesh Bishoee, Bhima Koregaon Case: Stan Swamy’s custody death a ‘stain
forever’, The Telegraph (19th march, 2022).
https://www.telegraphindia.com/jharkhand/bhima-koregaon-maoist-conspiracy-case-s
tan-swamys-custody-death-a-stain-forever/cid/1856620
11. UAPA charges related to Tripura Violence, Mukesh v. State of Tripura.
https://www.scobserver.in/cases/uapa-charges-related-to-tripura-violence/
12. Writ Petiton no. 470/2021, Mukesh & ors. v. State of Tripura.
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2021/27345/27345_2021_1_303_31436_Order_
17-Nov-2021.pdf

54
13. SCO Team, Umar Khalid’s Bail Application Tracker, Supreme Court Observer, (14th
Feb, 2024). https://www.scobserver.in/journal/umar-khalid-bail-application-tracker/
14. Betwa Sharma, 2023: The Year Imprisoned Political Activist Umar Khalid was not
heard by The Spreme Court, Article 14 (A14), (13th December, 2023).
https://article-14.com/post/2023-the-year-imprisoned-political-activist-umar-khalid-w
as-not-heard-by-the-supreme-court--65791f597efad
15. Year wise number of Persons Arrested and the number of persons convicted under the
Unlawful Activites (Prevention) Act, 1967 from 2018 - 2020.
https://data.gov.in/resource/year-wise-number-persons-arrested-and-number-persons-c
onvicted-under-unlawful-activities
16. State/UTs-wise Number of Cases Registered, Under-trials, Convicted and Acquitted
under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) in the Country during
2016-2020.
https://data.gov.in/resource/stateuts-wise-number-cases-registered-under-trials-convict
ed-and-acquitted-under-unlawful
17. State/UTs-wise Cases Registered by NIA under sedition or Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) or both (CR) Cases in which charge-sheets have not
been filed (CNF), and cases in which charge-sheets filed (CF) as on 13-12-2021.
https://data.gov.in/resource/stateuts-wise-cases-registered-nia-under-sedition-or-unlaw
ful-activities-prevention-act
18. The State of the World’s Human Rights, Amnesty International Report 2022/23.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/asia-and-the-pacific/south-asia/india/report-india

55
56