What Happened
- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court of India delivered a pointed address at the Supreme Court Bar Association's (SCBA) first national conference in Bengaluru on March 23, 2026, on the topic of the judiciary's role in "Viksit Bharat."
- Justice Bhuyan called for greater space for debate and dissent in a developing India, arguing that "Viksit Bharat cannot be built on criminalisation of dissent or social fault lines."
- He raised concerns about the reckless registration of FIRs for "trivial matters such as public demonstrations and agitations, sometimes even by students," including FIRs for memes and social media posts.
- Justice Bhuyan specifically flagged the overuse of stringent laws — particularly the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) — citing low conviction rates as evidence that many arrests are premature and unsupported by evidence: between 2019 and 2023, out of 10,440 UAPA arrests, only 335 (about 3.2%) resulted in convictions.
- He also said many within the judiciary suffer from a "more loyal than the king" syndrome — a willingness to deny bail even in deserving cases, resulting in accused persons languishing in jail for years without charges being framed or chargesheets filed.
- Justice Bhuyan also highlighted the under-representation of women in the higher judiciary: of 287 Supreme Court judges since 1950, only 11 have been women (~3.8%); women constitute only 14% of High Court judges.
Static Topic Bridges
UAPA — Provisions, Scope, and Criticism
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), originally enacted in 1967, is India's primary counter-terrorism and anti-secessionist legislation. It has been amended significantly in 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2019. The 2019 amendment was particularly significant as it empowered the government to designate individuals (not just organisations) as terrorists without judicial oversight. Key provisions that draw criticism include: the near-absence of bail (Section 43D — bail is denied if the court is of opinion that prima facie charges are true), the absence of a time limit for charge-sheet filing (unlike the CrPC/BNSS's standard 60/90 days), and the designation of investigating authority to NIA (National Investigation Agency). The conviction rate under UAPA has remained consistently below 5%.
- UAPA enacted: 1967; major amendments: 2004, 2008, 2012, 2019.
- 2019 amendment: allowed individual terrorist designation by Central Government.
- Bail provision (Section 43D(5)): bail shall not be granted if the court believes charges are prima facie true — sets a much higher bar than ordinary criminal law.
- UAPA arrests (2019-2023): 10,440 persons arrested; 335 convictions (3.2%).
- J&K made 42% of India's UAPA arrests in 2023 with a sub-1% conviction rate.
- NIA (National Investigation Agency): created in 2008 after the Mumbai attacks; investigates scheduled UAPA offences.
Connection to this news: Justice Bhuyan's reference to the vast majority of UAPA arrests not resulting in conviction — yet accused persons spending years in custody — is a direct critique of Section 43D's bail restriction and the absence of judicial safeguards at the arrest stage.
PMLA — Money Laundering Law and Enforcement Controversies
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 was enacted to combat money laundering and implement FATF (Financial Action Task Force) recommendations. It is administered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Ministry of Finance. The Act has been amended multiple times — most significantly in 2005, 2009, 2012, and 2019 — each time expanding the ED's powers of arrest, attachment, and search without warrant. The Supreme Court upheld many of these expanded powers in the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India (2022) judgment. Critics argue that the PMLA's broad "proceeds of crime" definition, the reverse burden of proof (accused must prove innocence), and the near-impossibility of bail in practice make it vulnerable to misuse as an investigative tool against political opponents and activists.
- PMLA, 2002: enacted to combat money laundering, implements FATF standards.
- Enforcement Directorate (ED): established 1956; PMLA enforcement arm under Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance.
- PMLA Section 24: reverse burden of proof — the accused must prove that proceeds of crime are not involved.
- PMLA Section 45 (bail): bail requires "reasonable grounds" that accused is not guilty + unlikely to commit offence — a twin condition making bail extremely difficult.
- Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (2022): upheld PMLA's broad provisions, including arrest without warrant and twin-condition bail.
- PMLA scheduled offences: include a very wide range of predicate offences — corruption, tax evasion, drug trafficking, cyber fraud, and more.
Connection to this news: Justice Bhuyan's concern about prolonged detention without conviction under PMLA mirrors the UAPA critique — the law's bail provisions are structured to presume guilt, and judicial reluctance to grant bail under these laws (the "loyal than the king" syndrome) compounds the problem.
Judicial Independence and Bail Jurisprudence
The principle of judicial independence — the freedom of courts to decide cases impartially based on law, free from executive or political pressure — is a fundamental feature of India's constitutional design. Articles 124–147 of the Constitution establish the Supreme Court and protect judicial appointments and tenure; Articles 214–231 cover High Courts. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held (in cases like S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India, 1981 and the collegium system evolution) that judicial independence requires both structural independence (secured tenure, fixed remuneration from the Consolidated Fund) and decisional independence (immunity from pressure). Justice Bhuyan's reference to some judges being "more loyal than the king" directly critiques the decisional independence of trial courts and high courts in bail matters involving powerful state agencies.
- Constitutional basis: Articles 50 (Separation of judiciary from executive in Directive Principles), Article 124 (SC establishment), Article 217 (HC judges).
- Bail jurisprudence: the Supreme Court has repeatedly held (Satendra Kumar Antil vs. CBI, 2022; Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, 2014) that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.
- Criminal procedure: under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (replacing CrPC), default bail provisions are at 60 or 90 days for different offences — but UAPA and PMLA override these defaults.
- Pendency: the Supreme Court has over 80,000 pending cases; all High Courts combined have over 62 lakh pending cases.
- Women in judiciary: 11 women SC judges in 76 years (~3.8% of total 287 judges); 14% of HC judges are women.
Connection to this news: Justice Bhuyan's speech directly interrogates how trial court and High Court judges apply bail jurisprudence in PMLA and UAPA cases — arguing that the "loyal than the king" judicial culture effectively nullifies the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21.
Key Facts & Data
- UAPA arrests (2019-2023): 10,440 persons; convictions: 335 (~3.2%)
- UAPA 2023 arrests: 2,914 persons; J&K: 1,206 (42% of total, <1% conviction rate)
- PMLA Section 45: twin bail conditions (near-impossibility of bail)
- UAPA Section 43D(5): bail denied if court finds prima facie charges credible
- Women SC judges (since 1950): 11 out of 287 (~3.8%); HC women judges: ~14%
- UAPA key amendments: 2004, 2008, 2012, 2019 (2019 added individual designation)
- PMLA enacted: 2002; major amendments: 2005, 2009, 2012, 2019
- Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India (SC, 2022): upheld PMLA's expanded powers
- SCBA conference: Bengaluru, March 23, 2026; theme: judiciary's role in Viksit Bharat
- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan: sitting judge of the Supreme Court of India