India's No.1 PU & Degree With Integrated IAS & IPS(UPSC/PSC) Training College.
Addressing the Challenges of UAPA: Need For Reform
Syllabus:
GS-3:
Various Security Forces & Agencies & Their MandateTerrorism in Hinterland & Border Areas
Focus:
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act) has been in the news due to recent high-profile cases highlighting prolonged detentions and stalled investigations. Notable incidents, such as the death of G.N. Saibaba post-acquittal and the postponement of Umar Khalid’s bail plea, underscore the urgent need for judicial reforms and accountability.
Prolonged Detentions and Delayed Investigations under UAPA:
- Spotlight on UAPA Cases: Recent incidents have highlighted the issue of long-term detentions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967.
- Examples of Delayed Justice:
- October 2023: N. Saibaba, former Delhi University professor, passed away after being acquitted in a UAPA case following a decade in prison.
- JNU student Umar Khalid’s bail plea, after four years of arrest under UAPA, was postponed due to court delays.
- In September 2023, the Supreme Court granted bail to a UAPA accused after more than four years in prison due to trial delays.
- Supreme Court Observations: Twice in 2023, the Court emphasised the importance of bail in UAPA cases, stating that “bail is the rule, jail is the exception.”
- Pending Investigations: Data shows that by the end of 2022, half of UAPA cases were pending investigation for over three years.
- Comparative Delays: UAPA’s rate of delayed investigations (50%) is the second highest across 122 crime categories, including serious offences like murder.
Understanding the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA):
- Introduction: Established in 1967 to impose reasonable restrictions on fundamental freedoms under Article 19(1) of the Constitution.
- Evolution: Became primary anti-terror legislation after the repeal of TADA and POTA.
- Key Definitions: Defines “unlawful activities” aimed at cession or secession of Indian territory and actions undermining national integrity.
- Terrorist Activities: Amended in 2004 to include terrorist activities; bans 34 organisations, including Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad.
- Powers: The Home Ministry can designate individuals and organisations as terrorists.
- Punishment: Imprisonment up to seven years for unlawful activities; life imprisonment for terrorism causing death, and 5 years to life for other terrorist acts.
- Applicability: Extends across India, applying to Indian citizens globally and those in government service or on registered ships/aircraft.
Rising Share of UAPA Cases Pending Investigation:
- Escalation Over Time: The percentage of UAPA cases pending for over three years has increased from 40% in 2019 to 50% in 2022.
- Delays across Crime Categories: UAPA investigations take longer than other offences, with forgery (57%) and passport violations (43%) being the closest comparatives.
- Magnitude of Delay: Over 2,020 UAPA cases were stuck in prolonged investigations at the end of 2022, out of a total of 4,037 UAPA cases.
- Impact on Justice Delivery: The delay in completing investigations exacerbates the hardship for those accused under UAPA, many of whom remain in jail.
- Outlier Status: UAPA remains an extreme case, with delays far surpassing those in other criminal cases, indicating systemic inefficiency in addressing such cases.
Arrests and Convictions: A Grim Picture:
- Arrest Data: From 2017 to 2022, thousands of individuals were arrested under UAPA, but the number of convictions and acquittals was significantly low.
- Conviction Rate: Less than 10% of individuals arrested during this period were convicted, acquitted, or discharged.
- Prolonged Trials: The low conviction rate reflects the extended nature of UAPA trials, causing lengthy incarcerations without resolution.
- Arrest vs. Conviction Gap: The disparity between the number of arrests and actual convictions indicates inefficiencies in the judicial process.
- Human Rights Impact: The prolonged detentions without trial or conviction amplify concerns about the human rights implications of UAPA.
Challenges in Securing Bail Under UAPA
- Bail Denials: UAPA cases are notorious for denying bail, making pre-trial detentions a significant punishment in themselves.
- Data on Bail: Between 2018 and 2020, only 23% of those arrested under UAPA secured bail, while 67% remained in jail awaiting trial.
- Conviction and Acquittal Rates: A mere 3% of those arrested were convicted, and 7% were acquitted, leaving a vast majority languishing in jail.
- Judicial Scrutiny: Despite repeated judicial observations, the restrictive nature of UAPA makes securing bail nearly impossible.
- Process as Punishment: The extensive delays in securing bail lead to a situation where the arrest itself becomes the de facto punishment.
The UAPA: A Systemic Issue in Indian Justice:
- Stalled Investigations: Prolonged police investigations are a common issue in India, but UAPA cases stand out for their high pendency rates.
- Supreme Court’s Stance: The Court’s call for faster trials in UAPA cases highlights the severity of the problem, yet significant delays persist.
- Inefficiency of Legal Process: The inefficiency of the investigation and trial processes under UAPA disproportionately affects those accused.
- Need for Legal Reform: The data points to the need for reforms to address prolonged detentions and improve the speed of investigations and trials.
- Enduring Consequences: The combination of delayed justice, restricted bail, and prolonged incarceration without trial has made UAPA a harsh law with far-reaching consequences for those charged under it.
Challenges:
- Prolonged Investigations: Over 50% of UAPA cases remain under investigation for more than three years, leading to excessive delays.
- Delayed Trials: Court proceedings for UAPA cases are often slow, leaving many accused in prison without a verdict.
- Low Conviction Rate: Less than 10% of arrests under UAPA result in convictions, indicating inefficiencies in judicial processes.
- Bail Difficulties: Securing bail under UAPA is extremely challenging, with only 23% of arrested individuals granted bail.
- Inadequate Judicial Capacity: Court backlogs and unavailability of benches contribute to frequent delays in UAPA cases.
- Human Rights Concerns: Long-term incarcerations without trial raise serious concerns about the violation of fundamental rights.
- Lack of Reform: Despite judicial observations, no significant legal reforms have been made to expedite UAPA cases.
Way Forward:
- Speed Up Investigations: Strengthen investigative agencies to complete UAPA investigations within a reasonable time frame.
- Judicial Reforms: Implement fast-track courts for UAPA cases to reduce prolonged detentions and delays in justice.
- Bail Reforms: Introduce clearer guidelines for granting bail to ensure that prolonged detention is minimised.
- Enhance Court Capacity: Allocate more judges and resources to expedite hearings and reduce case backlogs.
- Increase Accountability: Hold investigating agencies accountable for delays in UAPA cases to ensure faster trials.
- Human Rights Oversight: Establish independent oversight bodies to review long-term incarcerations under UAPA.
- Policy Review: Reassess the UAPA framework to balance national security with the protection of individual rights.
Conclusion:
The prolonged investigations and delayed trials under the UAPA highlight significant flaws in the Indian justice system. Urgent reforms are essential to expedite processes, ensure fair treatment, and uphold human rights while maintaining national security. Balancing these aspects is crucial for fostering a just legal environment.
Source: The Hindu
Main Practice Question:
Critically analyse the impact of the UAPA on individual rights and the justice system in India. Discuss potential reforms that could enhance efficiency and protect civil liberties while addressing national security concerns. What challenges might arise in implementing these reforms, and how can they be effectively overcome?
Associated Article:
