Supreme Court flags low UAPA conviction rate, says ‘bail is the rule’ even in terror cases
New Delhi, May 18: The Supreme Court on Monday observed that conviction rates in cases registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act…
New Delhi, May 18: The Supreme Court on Monday observed that conviction rates in cases registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) remain extremely low across the country, while reiterating that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” even in terror-related offences.
A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan made the observations while granting bail to Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, a Jammu and Kashmir resident who has spent more than six years in custody in a UAPA case linked to alleged terror funding through narcotics trafficking.
Supreme Court Questions Recent UAPA Bail Judgments
The apex court expressed reservations over two recent judgments delivered by smaller benches in Gurwinder Singh v. Union of India (2024) and Gulfisha Fatima v. State (2025), stating that both failed to properly apply the principles laid down by a three-judge bench in Union of India v. KA Najeeb (2021).
The KA Najeeb verdict had recognised prolonged delay in trial and extended incarceration as valid grounds for granting bail in UAPA cases, despite the stringent provisions under Section 43D(5) of the Act.
Justice Bhuyan, writing the judgment, observed that smaller benches are bound to follow decisions of larger benches.
“A judgment rendered by a bench of lesser strength is bound by the law declared by the bench of greater strength,” the court said, adding that judicial discipline requires such precedents to be followed or referred to a larger bench in case of disagreement.
‘Long Incarceration Cannot Become Punishment’
The bench criticised attempts to interpret the 2019 NIA vs Zahoor Ahmed Shah Watali ruling as a blanket bar on bail in UAPA cases.
The court also disapproved of the “two-prong test” evolved in the Gurwinder Singh case, which required the accused to prove lack of prima facie evidence before seeking bail.
According to the bench, such an approach could result in prolonged incarceration, turning punitive even before conviction.
“If this test is accepted, the State needs only to satisfy a low prima facie threshold while the trial may continue for years,” the judgment noted.
The court emphasised that Article 21 of the Constitution, guaranteeing personal liberty, applies irrespective of the nature of the offence.
Reservations Over Gulfisha Fatima Verdict
The Supreme Court also questioned the interpretation in the Gulfisha Fatima judgment that KA Najeeb applies only in exceptional circumstances.
The bench clarified that prolonged incarceration arising from delays in trial can itself justify bail in appropriate cases.
“We make it clear that KA Najeeb is binding law and entitled to the protection of stare decisis. It cannot be diluted, circumvented or disregarded,” the court observed.
Low Conviction Rate in UAPA Cases Highlighted
During the hearing, the court referred to statistics showing a very low conviction rate in UAPA cases nationally. It also noted that the conviction rate in Jammu and Kashmir was reportedly below one per cent.
The bench reiterated that speedy trial becomes even more important in serious criminal cases.
“Ideally, the more serious the accusations are, the speedier the trial should be,” the court observed.
Case Against Andrabi
Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, a resident of Handwara in Jammu and Kashmir’s Kupwara district, was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on June 11, 2020.
The NIA alleged that Andrabi was part of a cross-border network involved in heroin smuggling and terror financing linked to outfits such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hizbul Mujahideen.
He faces charges under the NDPS Act, UAPA and IPC conspiracy provisions before a Special NIA Court in Jammu.
His bail plea had earlier been rejected by both the Special NIA Court and the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court.
Judicial Discipline Emphasised
The Supreme Court strongly underlined the importance of judicial discipline, cautioning against smaller benches weakening binding precedents delivered by larger benches without formally disagreeing with them.
The court said constitutional protections under Article 21 cannot be overshadowed by procedural restrictions under special laws like the UAPA.
