Various decisions of the Supreme Court regarding bail under UAPA have sparked a new debate. On one hand there is the question of the security of the country, and on the other hand there are people who have been in jail for many years without the trial being completed. Low conviction rates and long trials show that in many cases the lengthy trial process itself turns into punishment. Let us know why it is so difficult to get bail under UAPA, how different decisions of the Supreme Court started a new debate. What does Section 43D(5) of UAPA say, what is the impact of the major decisions of the Supreme Court.
What happened in the Supreme Court?
In January 2026, a bench of the Supreme Court refused to grant bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case. The court said that the allegations are serious, hence bail cannot be granted. But four months later, the second bench, while granting bail in a UAPA case in Jammu and Kashmir, said that bail is the rule, jail the exception. The court made it clear that even under anti-terrorism laws, people cannot be kept in jail indefinitely.
After different views were seen in these two decisions, Delhi Police demanded to send the matter to a larger bench. On May 22, 2026, the Supreme Court handed over this important question to a larger bench whether staying in jail for a long time can weaken the strict bail rules of Section 43D(5) of UAPA. In the same order, interim bail was also granted to two other accused in the Delhi riots case.
What is the real problem?
The biggest reason for this entire controversy is the huge delay in investigation and trial. In many UAPA cases, it takes several years for the charge sheet to be filed, charges to be framed and the trial to begin. Advocate M.S., who has argued in more than 100 UAPA cases. According to Khan, due to thousands of pages of case diaries, lack of special courts and shortage of government lawyers, it takes about five years just to frame the charges. This is the reason why for many people the process itself becomes a punishment.
Seeing the seriousness of the problem, the Supreme Court has directed the states to create separate special courts to hear UAPA cases, to hold hearings on a daily basis and, wherever possible, the cases should be completed within a year. The court has clearly said that there should be no delay in such cases. However, in many states these instructions are not being followed completely. At the same time, due to more than 5 crore cases pending in courts across the country, the hearing of UAPA cases is also being affected.
Why is Section 43D(5) of UAPA so strict?
The UAPA law was enacted in 1967, but it was made more stringent in 2008 and 2019. Under its section 43D (5), if the court after looking at the charge sheet finds the allegations prima facie true, then it becomes very difficult to grant bail to the accused. That means, like in normal cases, bail is not easily granted. Apart from this, the police can get up to 180 days time to file the charge sheet, which can also be extended if needed.
What do the statistics tell?
The data of National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) gives a clear picture of this law.
- Around 1,200 to 1,400 UAPA cases were registered every year between 2014 and 2022.
- The conviction rate compared to those arrested was only between 1.5% and 6%.
- There are already more than 5 crore cases pending in the courts across the country, due to which the trial of UAPA cases also remains stuck for a long time.
The price of a long stay in jail
Being in jail for years without being proven guilty is not only a legal but also a humanitarian crisis. Due to this, families break up and jobs are lost. It has a deep impact on mental and physical health.
stan swami
Stan Swamy, an 84-year-old Jesuit priest and tribal rights activist, was arrested in the Bhima Koregaon case in October 2020. Despite suffering from Parkinson’s disease, he could not even get basic facilities like sipper and straw in jail on time. He died in the hospital in July 2021 while seeking medical bail.
Omar Khalid
Umar Khalid is in jail since September 2020. There was no major progress in his case even till the middle of 2026, while the documents of the case run into thousands of pages. In many cases, people are later acquitted, but by then they have spent many years of their lives in jail.
Two important decisions of the Supreme Court
1. Zahoor Ahmed Shah Watali Verdict (2019)
In this decision, the Supreme Court said that while deciding on bail, the court should consider the police allegations as prima facie correct. In-depth investigation of evidence will not take place at this stage. After this, getting bail in UAPA cases became more difficult.
2. K.A. Najeeb decision (2021)
The three-judge bench said that if the trial is going on for too long and Article 21 of the Constitution of the accused i.e. the right to life and personal liberty is being violated, then the court can grant bail despite the strictness of Section 43D(5).
What is the way forward?
Laws like UAPA are necessary to fight terrorism and extremism, but experts say that too much delay in justice is not justified. These steps can be taken to improve the situation.
- The number of special UAPA courts should be increased.
- Cases should be heard on a daily basis (day-to-day trial).
- Under Trial Review Committees (UTRC) should be made more effective.
- Legal provision should be made for estimated bail after a fixed time.
What is the difference between common law and UAPA?
The principle in general criminal law is that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. But the situation in the matter of bail in UAPA is quite strict. If the court prima facie finds the allegations true, then it becomes very difficult to get bail.
Leave a Reply