Different judicial interpretations regarding UAPA

Source: The post different judicial interpretations regarding UAPA has been created, based on the article “SC says jail, not bail, is the rule under the UAPA: How courts have been granting bail in UAPA cases” published in “Indian express” on 13th February 2024.

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper 3 – security- Challenges to internal security

News: The article discusses how the Supreme Court, on February 7, denied bail to Gurwinder Singh, involved in a Khalistan module case, under the strict UAPA law. It explains that the usual principle of ‘bail being the rule and jail the exception’ does not apply under UAPA.

What are the different judicial interpretations regarding UAPA?

Zahoor Ahmed Shah Watali v NIA (2019): The Supreme Court ruled that courts should not deeply analyze evidence for bail under UAPA, but rather accept it at face value.

Delhi High Court’s Ruling (2021): Granted bail to three student activists, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita, and Natasha Narwal, focusing on specific charges required by the police rather than broad accusations.

Bombay High Court’s Decision on Anand Teltumbde: Granted bail citing no direct link in the evidence to the crime, showing a nuanced interpretation of the evidence required under UAPA.

Union of India vs KA Najeeb (February 2021): The Supreme Court allowed bail under UAPA when the accused had been incarcerated for a significant period, acknowledging the need for balancing UAPA’s strictness with the right to a speedy trial.

Vernon Gonsalves v State of Maharashtra (July 2023): Suggested a need for surface-level analysis of evidence’s probative value at the bail stage, showing a shift from the Watali ruling.

What are the impacts of rulings on the UAPA law about granting bail?

Strict Bail Criteria: Under Section 43D (5) of the UAPA, bail is not to be granted if the court, based on the police report and case diary, finds reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true.

Role of Public Prosecutor: The section mandates that the Public Prosecutor must be heard before any decision on bail is made.

Shifted Burden of Proof: Unlike ordinary criminal law, this section shifts the burden onto the accused to demonstrate that the accusations are not prima facie true, which is a significant deviation from the general principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’.

Restrictive Application: The law, through this section, narrows down the scope for bail, especially in cases involving offences under Chapters IV and VI of the UAPA, making it exceptionally challenging for the accused to secure bail.

Way forward

The way forward should involve a larger bench of the Supreme Court resolving the contradictions between rulings of same strength judge benches, like those in Watali and Gonsalves. This would establish a clearer, more consistent legal framework for interpreting UAPA’s bail provisions, balancing national security with the accused’s rights.

Question for practice:

Examine the key aspects of the UAPA law regarding granting bail, and what are the different judicial interpretations regarding bail under UAPA?