Editorial: Stifling provisions
Police often misuse the dreaded UAPA, turning it into instruments of oppression
Bail is the rule and jail is an exception. This sums up the guiding principle of the justice system. No statute inherently precludes the granting of bail. This awareness is crucial for the investigating agencies 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. The Supreme Court has once again upheld the personal rights of citizens and ruled that the courts have the duty to grant bail when the conditions laid down under the law for the purpose are satisfied. Historically, law enforcement and investigation agencies have been arguing that the legal principle “bail is the rule and jail is an exception” is not applicable to special statutes like the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), 1967. Clearing the air conclusively, the apex court granted bail to a man who was booked under the UAPA on the charge of being an active member of a banned organisation. The SC Bench has rightly stated that even if the allegations against the accused are serious, courts should grant bail when the conditions for the purpose are satisfied. Over decades, the draconian provisions of the UAPA have often been misused by the police, turning them into instruments of oppression. The time has come for reforming the law which was enacted for application only in rare instances.
In August 2019, the NDA government amended the Act to include the provision of designating an individual as a terrorist. Prior to that, only organisations could be given the ‘terrorist’ tag. This crucial change has led to many individuals being booked for allegedly aiding and abetting terrorism. What’s glaring is the poor conviction rate under the UAPA — barely 3%. In nearly every case, the accused are acquitted as the prosecution fails to prove their guilt. The acquittal, however, comes only after the persons have spent several years behind bars. At times, the trial begins several years after the arrest. In such a scenario, getting bail under the UAPA becomes very significant. In the latest case, the SC punched holes in the chargesheet, saying there were no reasonable grounds to conclude that the charge of commission of offences punishable under the Act was prima facie true. By granting bail in this case, the apex court has sent a strong warning to the investigating agencies that they should not misuse the dreaded UAPA. Hopefully, invoking the contentious Act at the drop of a hat should no longer be the norm. So far, it was being used to stifle dissent. The tendency among the police has been to frequently invoke the anti-terrorism law as it enables them to detain the accused for longer periods without a trial.
