Examining The Supreme Court’s Jurisprudence To Arrests And Bail Under UAPA, 1967
- IJLLR Journal
- Jan 7
- 2 min read
Himanshu Mishra, PhD Scholar, National Law University, Delhi
ABSTRACT
This article critically examines the approach of the Supreme Court towards matters related to arrests and bail in the context of UAPA, especially on pivotal landmark cases like Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra. Through this, inconsistencies in the interpretation and implementation of bail-granting provisions under Section 43D(5) of UAPA can be shown as standing at odds with individual rights due to conflicts over national security.
By closely examining judgments like Gurwinder Singh, it is found that the tendency to apply UAPA judiciously with no flexibly allows national security to supercede constitutional safeguards like presumptions of innocence. Again Shoma Kanti Sen reflects a considerably lenient consideration-prolonged detention for more than two years and, personally it becomes highly pertinent to make a choice to ensure procedural fairness. The above judgments may suggest divergent trends but predictability and arbitrariness in judicial decision-making may be attributed to a broad jurisdiction.
The article analyses UAPA implications regarding civil liberties and chances of misusing this law to suppress dissent or restrictions on free speech. It mentions some of the major drawbacks as follows: long pre-trial detention, subjective judicial interpretations that do not carry any mechanism to check their arbitrary application. Various suggestions are given at the end like time- bound trials, an independent oversight mechanism, and clearer judicial guidelines for taking bail decisions.
The article underlines the pertinent need for a balanced approach that protects national security without compromising fundamental rights. In doing so a systematic reforms in the implementation of UAPA are important to ensure justice and fair transparency and protect constitutional values.
