• 12 October marks the second death anniversary of Prof. G.N. Saibaba, who spent a decade in prison under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) before the Bombay High Court acquitted him in 2024.
• The anniversary has renewed debate on the UAPA’s vague definitions, stringent bail conditions and long detention without trial.

More on the News

• Saibaba was arrested in 2014 over alleged Maoist links, convicted in 2017 and acquitted in 2024, and he died soon after his release.
• In the Bhima Koregaon case (2018), charges have not been framed even after eight years, and most accused got bail only after years in prison.
• In the Delhi riots case (2020), the Supreme Court denied bail to two accused in early 2026 after more than six years in jail without trial.

• The UAPA was enacted in 1967 to deal with activities that threaten the sovereignty and integrity of India. It was later expanded into India’s main anti-terror law.

Key Amendments

• The 2004 amendment added terrorism provisions after POTA was repealed.
• The 2008 amendment, after the Mumbai attacks, tightened the bail conditions.
• The 2019 amendment allowed the government to designate individuals as terrorists.

Key Provisions

• Under Section 43D(5), bail must be refused if the court finds the accusation prima facie true on a reading of the police case.
• Under Section 43D(2), police can detain an accused for up to 180 days before filing a chargesheet, compared with 90 days under ordinary criminal law.
• Terms such as “membership” of unlawful organisations and “terrorist act” are broadly worded and open to wide interpretation.

• Article 21: It protects personal liberty, which includes the right to a speedy trial.
• Arup Bhuyan (2011): The Supreme Court held that mere membership of a banned group is not a crime unless it involves violence. This view was overturned in 2023.
• Watali (2019): The Court held that judges need not examine evidence in detail at the bail stage, which made bail harder to get.
• K.A. Najeeb (2021): The Court held that bail can be granted under the UAPA if a long delay in trial violates Article 21.

• The debate touches the core balance between national security and civil liberties.
• Long detention without trial undermines the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception.
• Acquittals after years in prison raise questions of wrongful prosecution and state accountability.
• Inconsistent judicial approaches make bail outcomes judge-dependent, which weakens legal certainty.