UAPA Arrests With Low Convictions ‘Cannot Be Model Of Viksit Bharat’: SC Judge

Last Updated:March 23, 2026, 12:44 IST

Citing data from 2019 to 2023, he noted that thousands of people had been arrested under UAPA, while the conviction rate remained around 5%.

Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on Sunday said that the vision of a “Viksit Bharat" by 2047 would require greater space for debate and dissent, warning against criminalising such expression.

He also stressed the need to address deep social inequalities, including caste-based discrimination and atrocities against Dalits.

Speaking at the first national conference of the Supreme Court Bar Association in Bengaluru, Justice Bhuyan criticised the widespread use of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), saying large numbers of arrests under the anti-terror law coupled with very low conviction rates “cannot be a model of Viksit Bharat".

Also Read AI Can Assist Courts, But Cannot Replace Human Judgment: Justice Vikram Nath

Citing data from 2019 to 2023, he noted that thousands of people had been arrested under UAPA, while the conviction rate remained around 5%.

“It shows consistently low conviction. What does it indicate — overuse if not misuse (of the law) and its impact on the criminal justice system. How much burden does it put on courts? This shows the vast majority were arrested but could not be convicted. This indicates many arrests were premature and unsupported by sufficient evidence," he said.

Also Read Women Dominate Merit-Based Exams, But Few Clear Collegium’s Subjective Assessment: SC Judge

Justice Bhuyan questioned the prolonged detention of accused persons in such cases. “With a general conviction rate of 5% or less, and acquittal of more than 95% of UAPA cases, why should an accused be kept in jail without even filing a chargesheet against him? This can’t be a model of Viksit Bharat," he said, adding that such cases contribute to backlog, pendency and delays in the justice delivery system, undermining the principle that “bail is the norm and jail the exception".

He emphasised that a developed India must allow greater tolerance of differing opinions. “Debate should not be criminalised. There should be more tolerance towards diverse views. Divergent views should be respected. There should be more tolerance towards diverse views and criticism," he said.

Justice Bhuyan acknowledged that the political executive had set the target of achieving developed nation status by 2047.

“With all key players in the economic and social sector performing well, this is certainly an achievable target. After all, why should India not be a developed country for so long." However, he noted that the idea ultimately remains a political slogan, recalling the “garibi hatao" campaign of the 1970s.

He also questioned whether the judiciary should associate itself with such political messaging. “I have doubts whether the judiciary, though an organ of the State, but separate and distinct from other organs, should join this bandwagon. Without meaning any disrespect, the appropriate target for the judiciary should be the year 2050."

According to him, that year would mark a significant milestone. “By then, both our Constitution and SC would have completed 100 years, which is a significant milestone to look back and take stock of how we have travelled this far and what is the roadmap ahead," he said.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s 1986 judgment in the Bijoe Emmanuel case, which protected the rights of children from the Jehovah’s Witnesses sect who refused to sing the national anthem in school, Justice Bhuyan said only a courageous judge like O Chinnappa Reddy could have authored such a ruling.

He added that tolerance, a value rooted in India’s traditions and Constitution, must be practised in society.

Highlighting continuing caste-based discrimination and violence against Dalits, Justice Bhuyan said such realities undermine the idea of a developed nation. “Deep social fault lines are there. Viksit Bharat cannot countenance such fault lines."

He illustrated the issue with examples of everyday discrimination. “Parents cannot insist that their children will not have food prepared by a Dalit woman. That cannot be a Viksit Bharat model. We cannot have Viksit Bharat when Dalit people are made to stand in the corridor and people urinate on them. This can’t be the model of development. Respect for the individual must be protected."

News india UAPA Arrests With Low Convictions ‘Cannot Be Model Of Viksit Bharat’: SC Judge

Read More