-
Social
-

“Bail is the norm, jail is the exception”: SC: The rising misuse of UAPA & PMLA.

By
bo desk
Play / Stop Audio
Progress
September 2, 2024
The recent release of politicians Manish Sisodia and K Kavitha has brought attention to the often misused Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Acts (UAPA) in India. The Supreme Court granted bail to both, stating that “jail is the exception, bail is the rule.” Sisodia, a member of the AAP & former Deputy CM of Delhi, had been jailed for 17 months due to allegations of corruption related to a liquor policy. Kavitha, a member of the Telangana Legislative Assembly, faced similar accusations.

Background of the Cases

Sisodia was arrested in February 2023 after being accused of irregularities & scams in the Delhi liquor policy, which aimed to modernize alcohol sales in the city. The Enforcement Directorate claimed that the policy was designed to benefit certain liquor vendors through kickbacks. But, Sisodia and AAP leaders argue that these charges are politically motivated to undermine their party.

Kavitha was also jailed in the same case, and both were held without trial for an extended period, raising concerns about the misuse of the PMLA and UAPA to detain individuals without sufficient evidence. The SC’s ruling to let these influential people walk out was viewed as a critical step, especially given the low conviction rates of others under these laws.

Alarming Statistics on UAPA and PMLA

The statistics surrounding UAPA and PMLA are troubling. Between 2018 and 2020, 4,690 people were arrested under the UAPA, but only 140 were convicted, resulting in a mere 3% conviction rate. As of March 2022, there were 5,422 cases registered under the PMLA, with only 23 leading to convictions.

In 2022, there were nearly 4.4 lakh (440,000) undertrial prisoners in India, accounting for about 75.8% of the total prison population. Many of these individuals have been waiting for years without a trial date.

High-Profile Cases of Detention

Several high-profile cases illustrate the harsh realities of these laws:

- Umar Khalid: A former student leader from Jawaharlal Nehru University, Khalid was arrested in September 2020 under the UAPA for allegedly promoting violence during the Delhi riots. He remains in jail without bail, with supporters claiming that the charges are politically motivated.

- Aasif Sultan: A Kashmiri journalist, Sultan was arrested in August 2018 under the UAPA for alleged connections to militants. He spent over three years in jail before being granted bail in 2023 when the court ruled his arrest illegal. His case raised significant concerns about press freedom.

- Surendra Gadling: He is a lawyer and Dalit rights activist who has been detained since June 2018 under UAPA charges related to the Bhima Koregaon case. He remains imprisoned without trial, facing serious allegations of conspiracy and sedition.

- Jyoti Jagtap: Another activist involved in the Bhima Koregaon case, Jagtap was arrested in September 2020 and continues to face charges under the UAPA. She is currently imprisoned in Byculla Women’s Prison in Mumbai.

- Asif Iqbal Tanha: A student from Jamia Millia Islamia, Tanha was arrested in May 2020 under the UAPA for allegedly being part of a conspiracy behind the Delhi riots. He remains in jail, facing serious charges without a trial.

These people, along with many others, have been jailed for years without trial under the broad and vague provisions of the UAPA. The low conviction rate of just 2.2% from 2016-2019 suggests the law is being misused to detain mere protestors and activists.

Overall, the recent bail granted to Sisodia and Kavitha raises critical questions about the application of the UAPA and PMLA in India. With a massive number of people still imprisoned without trial, there is an urgent need for reform to ensure that these laws are not misused to silence dissent or target political opponents. 

The Supreme Court's emphasis on bail as the norm should be a reminder of the importance of justice and fairness in the legal system, which they themselves need to practice.

Comments