In a recent landmark decision, the Supreme Court underscored a stringent stance on granting bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The case in question involved an individual accused of promoting the Khalistani terror movement, a matter of grave concern. The apex court, comprising Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar, unequivocally emphasized that the mere passage of time without a trial’s commencement does not warrant bail, particularly in cases of such severity.
The ruling sheds light on the court’s approach towards cases falling under the purview of the UAPA. By emphasizing the gravity of the offense and the potential ramifications of granting bail, the judiciary aims to ensure that stringent measures are in place to counteract threats to national security.
This decision underscores the court’s commitment to upholding the rule of law while addressing matters of national security. It sends a clear message that exceptional circumstances must be demonstrated to warrant bail under the UAPA, emphasizing the principle of “bail the exception, jail the rule.”
As the legal landscape evolves, such judgments serve as guiding beacons, delineating the boundaries within which the judiciary operates in cases involving allegations of terrorism and national security breaches.
