What Happened
- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court of India, speaking at the 1st Supreme Court Bar Association National Conference 2026 on "The Role of Judiciary in Viksit Bharat," flagged the overuse of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
- He cited a conviction rate of less than 5% under UAPA, questioning why accused persons should be kept in jail for years when 95% are eventually not convicted.
- Justice Bhuyan noted a pattern of "reckless registration of criminal cases and FIRs" for minor matters including public demonstrations, student protests, and social media posts.
- He stated that criminalising dissent and debate is incompatible with the vision of a developed India by 2047 (Viksit Bharat), adding that "there should be more space for dissent and debate."
- He also cited concerns about judges exhibiting a "more loyal than the king" syndrome — an unwillingness to independently scrutinise state actions in national security cases.
Static Topic Bridges
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967 — Key Provisions
The UAPA is India's primary counter-terrorism and anti-secession legislation. Originally enacted in 1967 to deal with organisations seeking to challenge India's territorial integrity, it has been amended multiple times — most significantly in 2004, 2008, and 2019. The 2019 Amendment was the most far-reaching: it empowered the Central Government to designate individuals (not just organisations) as "terrorists," and extended the initial detention period without charge sheet to 180 days with court approval.
- Enacted: 1967; major amendments in 2004, 2008, and 2019
- Section 43D(5): bail may be denied if the court finds prima facie case against the accused — effectively reversing the usual bail presumption
- 2019 Amendment: individual designation as "terrorist" (Sections 35–36); challenged before Supreme Court on grounds of Articles 14 and 21
- Investigation period: up to 180 days before charge sheet (extendable with court permission); vs. 60–90 days under CrPC for most offences
- NIA Act (2008): National Investigation Agency designated as primary investigator for UAPA cases
Connection to this news: Justice Bhuyan's critique targets Section 43D(5) in particular — the bail provision that keeps accused persons incarcerated even when evidence is thin, given the 5% conviction rate.
Judicial Review of Executive Action in National Security Matters
Indian courts have traditionally exercised deference (limited scrutiny) when reviewing executive decisions in national security and anti-terrorism contexts, often applying the "national security exception" to reduce the intensity of judicial review. However, the Supreme Court has in recent years moved toward a more rights-protective posture. In NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019), the Court held that bail courts under UAPA must not conduct a detailed evaluation of evidence, making bail harder to obtain. By contrast, in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021), the Court held that constitutional courts can grant bail on grounds of violation of fundamental rights even under UAPA.
- Watali case (2019): bail courts should not assess evidence in detail — restrictive interpretation
- K.A. Najeeb (2021): constitutional courts retain jurisdiction to grant bail under Part III even under stringent laws
- Article 32: right to constitutional remedies — the Supreme Court has flagged misuse of Article 32 petitions even while protecting their availability
- Article 21 (right to life): interpreted to include right to speedy trial and right not to be detained indefinitely without conviction
Connection to this news: Justice Bhuyan's remarks signal judicial discomfort with Watali's restrictive approach, pushing back toward a more active rights-protective role for courts in UAPA bail matters.
Dissent, Free Speech, and Internal Security — Balancing Act
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees the right to free speech and expression. Article 19(2) permits the State to impose "reasonable restrictions" in the interests of, among others, public order, sovereignty, and integrity of India. The criminal law toolkit — including UAPA, sedition (Section 124A IPC, now being reviewed), and public order laws — is frequently invoked to restrict speech that challenges state policy. The question of where the boundary lies between legitimate dissent and actual threat to security has been contested before courts for decades.
- Article 19(1)(a): fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression
- Article 19(2): grounds for reasonable restrictions include sovereignty, integrity, public order, morality
- Section 124A IPC (sedition): under Supreme Court-ordered review since May 2022; its application has been stayed by the Supreme Court pending reconsideration
- Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950): early Supreme Court ruling that restrictions on speech must be strictly construed
Connection to this news: Justice Bhuyan's remarks that "there should be more space for dissent and debate" directly engage the Article 19 balance, arguing current law enforcement practice has tipped too far toward restriction.
Key Facts & Data
- UAPA enacted: 1967; last major amendment: 2019
- UAPA conviction rate: less than 5% (cited by Justice Bhuyan at SCBA Conference, 2026)
- Section 43D(5): key bail restriction provision in UAPA
- Maximum detention without charge sheet under UAPA: 180 days
- K.A. Najeeb (2021): Supreme Court held constitutional courts can grant bail on fundamental rights grounds even under UAPA
- Section 124A IPC (sedition): Supreme Court stayed its application in May 2022 pending reconsideration
- Viksit Bharat target year: 2047 (centenary of Indian independence)