Uapa Trials And Delay Issues
🔹 1. What is the UAPA?
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 is India’s primary anti-terror law. It was enacted to:
Prevent unlawful activities against the sovereignty and integrity of India,
Deal with terrorist activities and organisations,
Strengthen national security mechanisms.
🔹 2. Challenges with UAPA Trials
UAPA trials are notorious for delays, often leading to:
Long pre-trial detentions
Denial of default bail
Prolonged incarceration without conviction
🔹 Reasons for Delay:
Stringent bail conditions under Sections 43D(5) and 43D(2).
Slow investigation — sometimes years to file a charge sheet.
Designated special courts are overburdened or absent in some states.
Inadequate judicial scrutiny over repeated extensions.
Use of UAPA against political dissent, leading to judicial delay in separating genuine threats from misuse.
🔹 Legal Provisions Related to Trial Delays
Section 43D(2): Extends detention for 180 days (instead of regular 90 days).
Section 43D(5): Bail cannot be granted if the court believes the accusations are prima facie true.
Article 21 of the Constitution: Guarantees the right to a speedy trial as part of right to life and liberty.
⚖️ Important Case Laws on Delay in UAPA Trials
Here are 6 landmark cases where courts addressed delays in UAPA trials, bail, and misuse:
✅ 1. Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713
Facts: Najeeb was incarcerated for over 5 years under UAPA without commencement of trial.
Issue: Can bail be granted under Article 21 despite Section 43D(5) of UAPA?
Held: Yes. The Supreme Court held that fundamental rights under Article 21 override UAPA in cases of excessive delay.
Significance: Landmark ruling affirming that prolonged incarceration violates right to speedy trial and can be grounds for regular bail under UAPA.
✅ 2. Devangana Kalita v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2021
Facts: Activist Devangana Kalita was charged under UAPA in connection with Delhi riots.
Held: Delhi High Court granted bail, observing that the charges did not prima facie disclose a terrorist act under UAPA.
Relevance to Delay: The Court criticized the misuse of UAPA to prolong detention without trial.
Principle: Courts must scrutinize prima facie evidence and avoid allowing UAPA to be used as a tool for indefinite incarceration.
✅ 3. Asif Iqbal Tanha v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2021
Facts: Student activist arrested under UAPA in the Delhi riots conspiracy case.
Held: Delhi High Court granted bail, holding that the prosecution's evidence was not strong enough to attract UAPA.
Delay Factor: No significant progress in the trial; court refused to allow prolonged detention.
Significance: Judicial approach of not allowing UAPA’s stringency to override basic rights when delays are unreasonable.
✅ 4. Natasha Narwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2021
Facts: Another co-accused in the Delhi riots case, charged under UAPA.
Held: Bail was granted after the court found no prima facie case under UAPA.
Delay Discussion: The court emphasized that the seriousness of charges cannot be used to justify endless pre-trial detention.
Principle: Bail under UAPA must be evaluated realistically; long incarceration without trial is unconstitutional.
✅ 5. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali v. National Investigation Agency, (2019) 5 SCC 1
Facts: Businessman accused of terror financing under UAPA.
Held: Supreme Court upheld denial of bail, stating that courts cannot conduct a mini-trial at the bail stage and should go by prima facie evidence.
Criticism: While the case strengthened UAPA’s bar on bail, it also raised concerns about prolonged incarceration.
Context in Delay: Critics argue that this decision has been used to delay trials by preventing bail even in cases lacking sufficient evidence.
✅ 6. Sudha Bharadwaj v. National Investigation Agency, 2021
Facts: Human rights lawyer arrested in the Bhima Koregaon case under UAPA.
Held: Bombay High Court granted default bail after 3 years in custody, observing procedural lapses and delay in filing charges.
Significance: Reinforces the importance of procedural safeguards and timely trial under UAPA.
Takeaway: Delay in following proper legal steps can be grounds for bail.
📌 Summary Table
| Case | Key Point | Impact on Delay Issue |
|---|---|---|
| K.A. Najeeb | Article 21 overrides UAPA | Bail allowed due to long incarceration |
| Devangana Kalita | Prima facie scrutiny | UAPA misuse leads to unjustified detention |
| Asif Iqbal Tanha | No evidence of terrorism | Courts won’t tolerate indefinite pre-trial detention |
| Natasha Narwal | Disproportionate detention | Delay not justified by seriousness of allegations |
| Watali Case | Strengthened UAPA’s bar on bail | Criticized for facilitating longer detentions |
| Sudha Bharadwaj | Procedural delays = bail | Emphasized importance of default bail rights |
🔍 Conclusion
Delays in UAPA trials often lead to violation of constitutional rights, especially Article 21.
Courts are gradually rebalancing national security concerns with the rights of the accused.
While UAPA is necessary for handling terrorism, its misuse or excessive delay undermines justice.
The Supreme Court and High Courts have started pushing back against indefinite detention without trial.
RELATED Blog
0 comments