UAPA bail plea rejected by SC
IN NEWS
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, November 11, 2025, rejected the bail plea of a man identified as Ali (appellant name from the source) who was arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for allegedly promoting ISIS ideology and conspiring to carry out terror activities.
The accused was allegedly part of a conspiracy to attack the Jabalpur Ordnance Factory to procure weapons and wanted to see Sharia law implemented in India through violent means.
About UAPA Act
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) is an Indian law enacted in 1967 aimed at preventing unlawful activities and associations that threaten the sovereignty and integrity of India. It is primarily an anti-terror law that empowers the government to deal with terrorist actions and organizations. The Act has been amended several times, with significant amendments in 2004, 2008, and most notably in 2019.
Key features of UAPA include:
- Prevention and penalization of unlawful activities threatening India's sovereignty and integrity.
- Empowerment of the central government to designate organizations and, since 2019, individuals as terrorists.
- The 2019 amendment allows designating individuals as terrorists without a formal judicial process, which has raised concerns around due process, rights to bail, and potential misuse.
- The Act requires prior permission from the Ministry of Home Affairs or state governments for prosecution depending on the sections invoked.
- Conviction rates under UAPA are low, with many accused awaiting trial for long periods.
- The Act has faced criticism from human rights organizations and legal experts for potentially violating fundamental rights and facilitating misuse for political purposes.
Key Details of the Ruling:
- A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that "even preparation to commit a terror act is an offence" under the UAPA.
- The court noted that the accused had formed a WhatsApp group where a flag similar to that of ISIS was seen and that inflammatory material was recovered from him.
- During the hearing, in light of a recent car blast near Delhi's Red Fort, the court remarked it was the "Best morning to send a message" by denying bail in such cases.
- The court, while denying bail, directed the trial court to conclude the trial within two years and allowed the petitioner to revive his bail plea if the trial is not completed within that period through no fault of his own.
This decision is in line with the stringent bail provisions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, where bail is generally the exception and jail is the rule if a prima facie case exists.
Download Pdf
