Authors:
Balireddy Kanaka Lakshmi, V. Vijay Lakshmi, Lanke Haritha, Vallimireddy Abhinav Deep Dora

Addresses:
Dr B. R. Ambedkar College of Law, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India. Vignan Institute of Law, Vignan’s Foundation for Science, Technology and Research, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India.

Abstract:

The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA), stands as India’s primary counter-terrorism statute, empowering law enforcement to combat threats to national security. Section 43D (5) of the UAPA imposes stringent bail conditions, mandating that courts refuse bail if the allegations prima facie appear true, creating what practitioners describe as an effective statutory prohibition on bail pending trial. However, a series of landmark Supreme Court judgments—particularly the Delhi Riots bail orders (2025-2026)—have sought to reconcile the statutory embargo with the constitutional guarantees of personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution 7. This paper examines the trajectory of judicial interpretation, analyses the tension between national security imperatives and individual rights, and assesses the current state of bail jurisprudence under UAPA, with particular reference to recent Supreme Court decisions. The paper concludes that while courts have recognised limited constitutional override mechanisms, the practical effect remains that bail remains extraordinarily difficult to secure under UAPA, despite judicial rhetoric affirming that “bail is the rule, jail the exception.”

Keywords: Unlawful Activities Prevention Act; Section 43D (5); National Security; Bail and Article 21; Prima Facie Case; Constitutional Rights; Delhi Riots; Counter-Terrorism Law; Indian Constitution.

Received on: 29/06/2025, Revised on: 02/09/2025, Accepted on: 27/10/2025, Published on: 05/06/2026

DOI: 10.69888/FTSPL.2026.000680

FMDB Transactions on Sustainable Public and Law, 2026 Vol. 1 No. 2, Pages: 71-79

• Views : 55
• Downloads : 15

Download PDF