The Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal from Uttarakhand state regarding the grant of bail to a man named Abdul Malik [1].
The ruling signals a potential shift in how Indian authorities apply the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, known as UAPA. By questioning the classification of arson as a terror offense, the court may limit the ability of the state to use stringent anti-terror laws for violent crimes that lack a clear terrorist motive.
During the proceedings, the court examined whether the act of torching a police station automatically falls under the ambit of the UAPA [1]. The justices expressed skepticism regarding the categorization of such an act as a UAPA offense [1].
The court held that bail granted by a High Court should not ordinarily be challenged in the apex court [1]. This decision reinforces the discretionary power of lower courts in determining bail eligibility, even when the state seeks to maintain custody under specialized security legislation.
This judicial scrutiny contrasts with the positions held by other law enforcement agencies. In a separate matter related to the 2020 Delhi riots, the Delhi Police said that such acts of violence fall within the UAPA framework [3]. Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, representing the Delhi Police, previously said concerns regarding the granting of bail in UAPA cases, citing trial delays as an insufficient reason for release [3].
The court's inquiry into the specific nature of the crime suggests a need to distinguish between general criminal violence and organized terrorism. While the state of Uttarakhand sought to overturn Malik's bail, the court maintained the High Court's decision while raising fundamental questions about the legal definitions used by prosecutors [1].
“The Supreme Court questioned the categorisation of torching a police station as a UAPA offence.”
This development highlights a growing tension between India's security agencies and its judiciary over the scope of the UAPA. If the court establishes that arson against state property does not automatically constitute a terror act, it could lead to a significant number of prisoners being reclassified under the Indian Penal Code, where bail is more accessible and the burden of proof for the state is different.
