An Examination of Bail Jurisprudence under UAPA
Bail jurisprudence traditionally upholds the principle that “bail is the rule, and jail is the exception.” However, the introduction of Section 43D(5) in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), through the UAPA (Amendment) Act, 2008, has significantly altered this notion. This amendment allows courts to deny bail based on a “prima facie” test, where allegations against the accused appear prima facie true. Consequently, the burden of proof required to deny bail has been lowered, effectively turning the principle on its head. Under UAPA, the rejection of bail has become a norm.
The Supreme Court’s Clarification
In the recent Supreme Court case of Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. NIA Jammu, 2026 INSC 503, the Court addressed varying interpretations by different benches regarding bail under the UAPA. These benches had highlighted that Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA significantly restricts the courts’ power to grant bail, reinforcing the idea that “bail must be rejected as a rule” in UAPA cases.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court criticized these decisions, emphasizing the precedence of the three-judge bench ruling in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 173. The Court stressed that constitutional liberties override statutory constraints, particularly when prolonged incarceration and trial delays infringe upon Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court declared that the constraints of Section 43-D(5) “melt away” under such circumstances, underscoring that constitutional considerations can surpass statutory barriers.
Section 43D(5) of UAPA and Constitutional Rights
A central issue in UAPA offenses is the interpretation of Section 43D(5), which imposes a high burden of proof on the accused. The discussion revolves around whether this stringent provision can overshadow fundamental rights to a speedy trial and personal liberty, as guaranteed by Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. Historically, prosecutors have argued, often citing cases like NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) 5 SCC 1, that courts have limited discretion to evaluate evidence at the bail stage, minimizing their role in bail decisions.
However, the Supreme Court expressed concerns over decisions in cases such as Gulfisha Fatima vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Gurwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, which suggested that the K.A. Najeeb ruling cannot be universally applied. The Court reiterated that constitutional guarantees, especially Article 21, take precedence over statutory enactments, even those as stringent as UAPA.
More Read
Empirical Data and Judicial Oversight
The Supreme Court also explored statistical data, revealing a disconnect between pre-trial detention severity under UAPA and the subsequent low conviction rates. Data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) showed a mere 1.5% to 4% conviction rate nationwide, with some regions like Kashmir and Jammu reporting even lower rates. This suggests a high probability of acquittal, challenging the justification for prolonged pre-trial detention.
The Court ruled that such detention is unjustifiable given the statistical likelihood of acquittal, unless the allegations are severe and well-founded. This decision incorporates empirical metrics, asserting that extended custody based on unproven accusations is unwarranted when conviction chances are low.
Conclusion
This landmark judgment underscores the supremacy of the Constitution within the legal framework, ensuring that statutory provisions operate within constitutional confines. It reaffirms that state powers cannot arbitrarily curtail personal liberty, emphasizing the judiciary’s role as a guardian of constitutional morality, due process, and personal freedom.
About the authors: Astha Sharma is a Partner and Anju Thomas is an Associate Partner at AQUILAW.
Disclaimer: The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Bar & Bench. For publication inquiries, please fill out the form available here.
