SC Says UAPA Cannot Override Personal Liberty, Grants Bail in Narco-Terror Case

In a significant judgment that could influence several pending anti-terror cases across the country, the Supreme Court on Monday reiterated that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception”, even in cases registered under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) . The observation came while granting bail to Syed Iftikhar Andrabi , a Jammu and Kashmir resident accused in a high-profile narco-terror case involving alleged cross-border drug trafficking and terror financing.

A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan granted relief to Andrabi, who is being investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in a 2020 case linked to a syndicate allegedly operating across the border in Jammu and Kashmir. The court directed the accused to surrender his passport and report to the local police station once every 15 days.

The apex court observed that the stringent bail restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA cannot justify indefinite incarceration and must operate within the framework of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, which guarantee personal liberty and protection against arbitrary detention.

“ Bail is the rule and jail is the exception is a constitutional principle,” the bench said, adding that the presumption of innocence remains a cornerstone of the rule of law.

The Supreme Court also strongly reaffirmed the landmark Union of India vs KA Najeeb (2021) ruling, which held that constitutional courts can grant bail in UAPA cases if prolonged incarceration and delays in trial violate fundamental rights. The bench clarified that the KA Najeeb judgment remains binding law and cannot be ignored or diluted by lower courts.

Andrabi had challenged an earlier order of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court , which denied him bail after investigators cited cellphone records allegedly showing contact with terror operatives across the border.

The latest ruling is expected to have wider implications for several UAPA cases involving prolonged detention, including those related to Umar Khalid , Sharjeel Imam , Siddique Kappan , and the Bhima Koregaon accused such as Sudha Bharadwaj and Varavara Rao . The debate over prolonged incarceration under anti-terror laws had also intensified following the death of activist Father Stan Swamy in judicial custody in 2021.

The ruling has also revived discussions around late Professor G.N. Saibaba , who spent years imprisoned under UAPA charges over alleged Maoist links. Saibaba, who was 90 percent disabled , became a prominent example in debates over prolonged incarceration under anti-terror laws. Rights activists repeatedly pointed out that he was denied bail even to visit his dying mother and was not allowed to attend her funeral rites after her death while he remained in custody.

Legal experts believe the judgment reinforces the judiciary’s growing emphasis on balancing national security concerns with the constitutional right to liberty and speedy trial.