Why does UAPA demand urgent reform?

Why in News?

October 12, 2026 marks the second death anniversary of Professor G.N. Saibaba, renewing debate over prolonged imprisonment, stringent bail conditions and procedural safeguards under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).

What is UAPA?

• The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 is India’s principal anti-terrorism legislation. Initially enacted to prevent unlawful activities threatening India’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, it has gradually expanded to cover terrorism, terrorist organisations, individual terrorist designations and terror financing.
• Major amendments: The 2004 amendment incorporated terrorism-related provisions following the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA). The 2008 and 2012 amendments strengthened the framework, while the 2019 amendment empowered the government to designate individuals as terrorists and expanded the investigative powers of the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

Key Provisions of the UAPA:

• Unlawful activities and associations: Section 2(o) broadly defines unlawful activity, while Section 3 empowers the Central Government to declare an association unlawful, subject to statutory review.
• Terrorist acts: Section 15 defines a terrorist act, while Sections 16-18 prescribe punishments for terrorist acts, conspiracy and related activities.
• Terrorist organisations and individuals: The Act permits the government to notify terrorist organisations. Following the 2019 amendment, individuals can also be designated as terrorists, subject to statutory review and removal mechanisms.
• Membership and support: The Act criminalises specified activities relating to membership, support, recruitment, harbouring, conspiracy and financing associated with unlawful or terrorist organisations.
• Extended investigation period: Subject to statutory conditions and judicial scrutiny, the period for completing an investigation and detaining an accused can be extended from 90 to 180 days.
• Stringent bail conditions: Under Section 43D(5), bail is restricted where, after examining the case diary or police report, the court finds reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation is prima facie true.
• Investigation and prosecution: The Act provides powers of arrest, search and seizure, while specified offences require prior governmental sanction for prosecution.

These provisions serve legitimate national-security objectives, but their breadth and interaction with stringent bail restrictions create significant concerns about individual liberty and due process.

Major Concerns and Challenges:

(i) Prolonged Pre-trial Incarceration and Delayed Justice:

The combination of stringent bail provisions, extended investigation periods and lengthy trials can result in years of imprisonment before conviction. This undermines the presumption of innocence and risks turning pre-trial detention into punishment.

• G.N. Saibaba case: He spent nearly a decade in prison before being acquitted by the Bombay High Court in 2024.
• Bhima Koregaon case: Sixteen scholars and activists were arrested following the 2018 case. The trial has yet to begin eight years later. 
• Delhi riots case: Several student leaders and activists faced UAPA charges following the 2020 riots. In early 2026, the Supreme Court granted bail to five of seven appellants after more than five years in prison.

In Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021), the Supreme Court recognised that prolonged incarceration and the unlikelihood of an early conclusion of trial could justify constitutional intervention despite statutory restrictions on bail.

Even where an accused is eventually acquitted or granted bail, years of lost liberty, deteriorating health, financial hardship and reputational damage may be irreversible.

(ii) Vague and Expansive Definitions:

• Overbroad Language: Section 2(1)(o) (unlawful activity) and Section 15 (terrorist act) use expansive phrasing, leading to subjective interpretations by enforcement agencies.
• Proportionality Blur: The Act fails to clearly distinguish between passive association, ideological sympathy, and active participation in violence, overriding the judicial standard set in Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam.
• Excessive Executive discretion: Imprecise statutory language grants wide powers to investigative bodies, allowing them to conflate legitimate dissent, speech, and protests with terrorism.
• Constitutional Infringement: This lack of precision risks creating a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression, directly undermining Article 19(1)(a) and the right to assemble peacefully under Article 19(1)(b).

(iii) Inconsistent Judicial Interpretation:

Judicial interpretation has not always provided a consistent safeguard against expansive application of the UAPA. Section 43D(5) places a significant restriction on bail by requiring courts to examine whether the accusation is prima facie true. 

• Restrictive Prima Facie Standard: In NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019), the Supreme Court barred detailed evaluation of evidence at the bail stage, dictating that prosecution documents must be accepted at face value, making bail nearly impossible.
• Constitutional Overlook Exception: In Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021), the Court carved out an exception, ruling that statutory barriers under Section 43D(5) cannot override constitutional courts’ power to protect Article 21 in cases of prolonged incarceration without trial.

The coexistence of these conflicting doctrines leaves trial courts without a uniform guideline on whether to prioritise statutory restrictions (Watali) or constitutional protections (Najeeb).

(iv) Chilling effect on Speech and Association

• The use of counter-terrorism provisions against activists, scholars and journalists can discourage legitimate dissent, reporting, research and civil-society work. The resulting chilling effect can weaken democratic participation, freedom of association, academic freedom and the ability of civil society to hold public authorities accountable. 

Constitutional and Judicial Safeguards:

Way Forward:

• Narrow and precise statutory definitions: Parliament should clarify the scope of unlawful activity, organisational membership and terrorist acts to distinguish genuine participation in terrorism from peaceful dissent, ideological association and legitimate political activity.
• Reform bail provisions: The application of Section 43D(5) should incorporate meaningful judicial scrutiny of the quality and credibility of prosecution material, while preserving the legitimate requirements of national security investigations.
• Prevent indefinite pre-trial detention: Courts should periodically assess the necessity of continued incarceration, taking into account the length of detention, progress of the trial, nature of evidence and likelihood of an early conclusion.
• Ensure time-bound trials: Special Courts should receive adequate judges, prosecutors, forensic facilities and technological support. Case management and periodic review of pending cases can reduce avoidable delays.
• Strengthen procedural safeguards: Arrests, remand extensions, searches, seizures and prosecution sanctions should comply with statutory requirements and constitutional protections. Accused persons must have meaningful access to legal remedies.
• Ensure consistency in judicial interpretation: The Supreme Court should develop clear and predictable standards for applying the UAPA, particularly regarding membership, the definition of terrorism, evidentiary scrutiny at the bail stage and excessive trial delays.

The UAPA addresses a legitimate and serious national-security challenge. However, a law intended to protect the country must itself remain subject to the Constitution. UAPA reform should ensure that extraordinary investigative powers remain accountable to constitutional guarantees of liberty and fair procedure.

UPSC Mains Practice Question: 

Q. “The effectiveness of counter-terrorism legislation depends as much on procedural fairness as on investigative powers.” Discuss with reference to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. 

Practice MCQ:

Q. With reference to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), consider the following statements:

1. The Central Government can designate both individuals and organisations as terrorists.

2. The extension of the investigation-related custody period beyond 90 days, up to 180 days, requires judicial approval.

3. The Act applies to Indian citizens irrespective of where the crime mentioned in the Act is committed.

How many of the above statements is/are correct?

(a) Only one

(b) Only two

(c) All three

(d) None

Answer: (c) 

Explanation: 

• Statement 1 is correct: Following the 2019 amendment, the Central Government can designate both organisations and individuals as terrorists under Section 35.
• Statement 2 is correct: Under Section 43D(2), the investigation period can be extended beyond 90 days up to 180 days by the Court, provided it is satisfied with the Public Prosecutor’s report indicating the progress of the investigation and specific reasons for continued detention. Thus, judicial approval is required.
• Statement 3 is correct: UAPA applies to Indian citizens outside India. Therefore, an Indian citizen can be proceeded against under the Act for an offence committed outside India, subject to its provisions.