Editorial: Hope for undertrials
Legal principles must not be overshadowed by rigid interpretations that compromise individual freedoms
In a country where inordinate delays in the justice delivery system force undertrials to languish in jails for years and even those granted bail must wait till the court order reaches the jail authorities by post, the urgency of reforms need not be overemphasised. A key component of reforms concerns changes in bail provisions. The Supreme Court’s latest ruling granting bail to a person who was booked under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and languishing in jail for nine years offers a ray of hope to thousands of undertrials facing a similar plight. The apex court has rightly observed that “bail, not jail, is the basic rule” and that should be the guiding judicial principle. The landmark ruling comes as a relief in a legal landscape where the reluctance on the part of courts to grant bail has led to prolonged incarceration and raised serious human rights concerns. The higher judiciary has been grappling with an overwhelming number of bail applications, highlighting a troubling trend of reluctance at lower judicial levels to grant bail. Prolonged detention often infringes on the personal liberties of the accused, even as their trials progress at an excruciatingly slow pace. The SC decision clarifies that no statute, including the UAPA, inherently precludes the granting of bail. This distinction is crucial as it reinforces that legal principles must not be overshadowed by rigid interpretations that compromise individual freedoms. The matter of bail should not be complicated or politically charged. It is a straightforward judicial procedure intended to balance the rights of the accused with the interests of justice.
Unfortunately, the provisions of the sedition law and the UAPA are being grossly misused across the country, often with impunity. Time has come for reforming the law which was enacted in 1967 for application only in rare instances. However, the experience has shown that it is being indiscriminately used by the governments — both Centre and States — to varying degrees. A very low conviction rate of less than 3% indicates that the UAPA is indiscriminately used by the police to harass and intimidate. By the time the judges get to apply themselves to the allegations made in the charge sheets, the accused would have already spent years in custody. Judicial experts view the UAPA as part of the police’s efforts to stifle peaceful dissent. The tendency among the police has been to frequently use the anti-terrorism law as it enables them to detain the accused for longer periods without a trial. Though social media posts, per se, cannot be said to constitute an unlawful or terrorist activity, there has been a growing trend of investigating agencies labelling them as unlawful. However, intervention by higher courts ensured justice in some cases. The latest SC order will, hopefully, drive the process of rectifying the imbalance and ensuring that justice is not only done but seen to have been done.
