Supreme Court Judge Raises Concerns Over UAPA Misuse and Gender Gaps in Judiciary
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court of India criticised the excessive use of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) at the first national conference of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) in March 2026.
Speaking on the theme "The Role of Judiciary in Viksit Bharat," Justice Bhuyan warned that the goal of a developed India by 2047 cannot be achieved through "criminalisation of dissent" and "mindless arrests" under anti-terror laws.
He noted that in 2019, there were 1,984 arrests under UAPA but only 34 convictions — a conviction rate of under 5% — questioning why accused persons should be imprisoned for years with a 95% chance of eventual acquittal.
Justice Bhuyan stated that "many in judiciary suffer from a 'more loyal than the king' syndrome," denying bail even in deserving cases, leading to prolonged incarceration.
On gender diversity, he criticised the appointments made during a former Chief Justice's tenure, pointing out that none of the 14 judges appointed to the Supreme Court during that period were women, and that women's representation drops sharply when appointments depend on Collegium decisions rather than competitive examinations.
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967: Key Provisions and Controversy
The UAPA is India's primary anti-terror legislation. Originally enacted in 1967 to prevent unlawful activities against India's sovereignty and territorial integrity, it was significantly expanded by amendments in 2004, 2008, and 2019 to cover terrorism, terrorist funding, and individual designation as terrorists.
Justice Bhuyan's remarks directly interrogate Section 43D(5)'s near-absolute bail bar — if 95% of accused are ultimately not convicted, the provision effectively punishes accused without trial, raising Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty) concerns.
PMLA: Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 is India's primary law against money laundering. Like UAPA, it has bail provisions that effectively reverse the presumption of innocence.
Justice Bhuyan's mention of PMLA alongside UAPA signals judicial concern about a broader pattern: multiple laws with stringent bail provisions being used for preventive incarceration rather than targeted prosecution of proven offenders.
Women's Representation in the Higher Judiciary: Collegium System
India's higher judiciary (High Courts and Supreme Court) appoints judges through the Collegium System — a convention (not a constitutional provision) under which the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most Supreme Court judges collectively recommend appointments. The Collegium system evolved through three Supreme Court cases known as the "Three Judges Cases" (1981, 1993, 1998).
Key Details
- First Judges Case (1981): Held that "consultation" with the Chief Justice does not mean "concurrence."
- Second Judges Case (1993): Overturned the 1981 ruling — held that the Chief Justice's opinion has primacy in appointments and transfers.
- Third Judges Case (1998): Presidential Reference — clarified that the "collegium" is the CJI plus 4 senior-most judges, and their collective opinion prevails.
- The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014 (99th Constitutional Amendment) sought to replace the Collegium with a 6-member commission including the Law Minister and two eminent persons — struck down by the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015) as violating judicial independence.
- Women in Indian judiciary: As of recent data, women constitute about 13% of all High Court judges and have never exceeded 4 sitting judges in the Supreme Court simultaneously. Of 34 Chief Justices of the Supreme Court, only 1 has been a woman (Justice Sujata Manohar briefly served as acting CJI).
- Women tend to perform proportionally better in competitive judicial examinations (district judiciary) — their representation drops sharply at the Collegium-appointed level.
Justice Bhuyan's observation that zero women were appointed during a specific CJI's tenure (out of 14 appointments) exemplifies the systemic diversity blind spot in the Collegium process — a body that self-selects without statutory diversity requirements.
Article 21: Right to Life and Liberty
Article 21 of the Constitution provides that "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." The Supreme Court has progressively expanded Article 21 to cover not just physical liberty but dignified existence, speedy trial, and protection from arbitrary detention.
Justice Bhuyan's remarks are rooted in Article 21 jurisprudence — the pattern of low-conviction, high-arrest use of UAPA constitutes a systematic deprivation of liberty without due process, precisely what the courts have repeatedly said Article 21 guards against.
- UAPA enacted: 1967; amended 2004, 2008, 2019
- UAPA arrests in 2019: 1,984; convictions: 34 (conviction rate <5%)
- Section 43D(5): Bail requires court satisfaction that accused is "not guilty" (stricter than ordinary law)
- Custody without charge sheet: 180 days under UAPA (vs 90 days under CrPC)
- Women judges in HCs: ~13% of total strength (recent data)
- Collegium system basis: Second Judges Case (1993) and Third Judges Case (1998)
- NJAC struck down: 2015, Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India
- India's undertrial prisoners: ~75-76% of total prison population (NCRB 2022)
- K.A. Najeeb (2021): Article 21 can override UAPA bail restriction if speedy trial is violated