New Delhi: The Supreme Court rejects plea by alleged member of banned outfit ‘Sikhs for Justice’ under UAPA Act, emphasizing that bail is the exception and jail is the rule. The court states that the intention of the legislature in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is to prioritize incarceration over bail. The bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Aravind Kumar emphasizes that the traditional concept of bail as the rule, and jail as the exception, does not apply under the UAPA. They explain that bail can only be granted if there are no reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true. Additionally, the bench highlights the restrictive nature of granting bail under the UAPA, as it uses stronger language compared to other statutes. The proviso to Section 43D(5) indicates the legislature’s intention to make bail an exception and jail the rule.
This decision draws attention to the uniqueness of the UAPA Act and the high bar for obtaining bail in cases falling under its jurisdiction. The court’s ruling clarifies that bail can only be considered if the accused does not pose a flight risk, is not likely to influence witnesses, and will not tamper with evidence. By providing this clarity, the court establishes a stricter framework for bail decisions in UAPA cases.
The UAPA Act has faced criticism in the past for being draconian and curbing personal liberties. However, this latest judgement confirms that the Act is intended to address the serious nature of terrorist activities and curb potential threats to national security. While it is crucial to protect individual rights, the court’s ruling underscores the need for a cautious approach when it comes to granting bail to those accused of offenses under the UAPA Act.
The decision may set a precedent for future cases involving alleged members of banned organizations, especially those advocating for causes like Khalistan. The rejection of bail in this case further strengthens the government’s stance on tackling extremism and terrorism, signaling a firm commitment to maintaining law and order.
The judgement also emphasizes the power of the legislature and its ability to shape the legal landscape. The language used in the UAPA Act reflects a deliberate attempt by lawmakers to prioritize the detention of accused individuals over their release on bail. The courts are now bound by this legislative intent and are required to adhere to the stringent provisions of the UAPA Act.
As this ruling showcases the distinctive nature of the UAPA Act and its impact on bail decisions, legal experts anticipate further discussion and debate on the Act’s provisions. It will be interesting to see how future cases unfold within this framework and how the courts interpret and apply the provisions in practice.
