Editorial 2: When Process is Punishment
Context:
The recent rejection of bail to activist Umar Khalid by the Delhi High Court once again demonstrates how the legal process in India can undermine the constitutional right to liberty. The way draconian laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) are misused and the trial process itself become a form of punishment, often harsher than any final sentence.
Judicial Delays and Endless Adjournments:
- The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that “bail is the rule, jail the exception.”
- However, in cases under UAPA, this principle is turned upside down. Courts routinely deny bail, citing the seriousness of charges, even without conclusive evidence.
- In Khalid’s case, his bail application was dismissed despite the lack of proven grounds. This reflects a broader judicial pattern where the severity of charges overshadows the presumption of innocence, leading to long years in jail for under trials who have not been convicted.
- Khalid’s trial has dragged across 16 months and 48 hearings, with repeated adjournments.
- Each hearing means more uncertainty and extended incarceration. Such delays defeat the purpose of a speedy trial, effectively making the trial process itself punitive.
- By the time courts eventually acquit or dismiss cases, individuals may have already spent years behind bars, losing valuable time, livelihood, and dignity.
UAPA misuse:
- UAPA stands out as one of India’s harshest laws. Its vague definitions of “unlawful activities” and “terrorist acts” give enormous discretionary powers to the state.
- Authorities can easily categorize political dissent, peaceful protest, or even online expression as “anti-national” or “terrorist.”
- Unlike ordinary criminal laws, UAPA makes bail extremely difficult. Section 43(D)(5) states that courts cannot grant bail if the accusations seem “prima facie true.”
- This clause effectively forces judges to deny bail, even when evidence is flimsy.
- As a result, an accused may spend years in jail before being acquitted, by which time the punishment has already been served.
- Such laws strike at the heart of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. By allowing the state to incarcerate individuals without trial, UAPA violates this principle.
- The misuse of UAPA poses a grave threat to civil liberties, freedom of speech, and democratic rights. This weakens the very foundation of democracy.
Curbing political dissent and activism:
- UAPA has repeatedly been used to silence dissent rather than tackle genuine threats.
- Student activists, journalists, or political opponents have been booked under UAPA for criticizing government policies or participating in protests.
- Though conviction rates under UAPA are extremely low, the lengthy pre-trial incarceration serves the state’s purpose of silencing the voices of opposition.
- The introduction of the new criminal codes — Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) — was an opportunity to reform these issues.
- Instead of strengthening safeguards for liberty, they expand police powers, extend custody periods, and ignore the core problem of misuse of anti-terror laws.
Way forward:
The rejection of bail to Umar Khalid symbolizes a much larger problem in India’s justice system. When trials drag on for years, bail is routinely denied, and draconian laws invert constitutional principles, the process itself becomes the punishment. Reforming this culture requires both judicial sensitivity and sustained public pressure. This will uphold the fundamental rights of the citizens and their trust in judicial system.