What Parliament’s UAPA Numbers Miss: Longest Sentence Often Comes Before Trial
Between 2019 and 2023, 10,440 people were arrested under UAPA, while just 335 convictions were recorded.
advertisement
Between 2019 and 2023, 10,440 people were arrested under India’s principal counter-terror statute, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). During the same period, 335 convictions were recorded.
These figures were not produced by civil society groups or investigative journalists. They were placed before Parliament this month by the Union government itself, in response to a question in the Lok Sabha. Compiled by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), the data sets out year-wise arrests and convictions under UAPA across the country.
Since then, the numbers have largely been discussed as arithmetic — arrests versus convictions. But this framing risks overlooking what the data reveals: how the law operates in the long period before any court reaches a verdict.
UAPA is designed to address serious and exceptional threats to national security. That purpose is not in question. What the parliamentary data invites is a closer look at how the law functions at the pre-trial stage, where liberty is first—and often most directly—affected.
What Parliament was shown, however, was incomplete. While arrest and conviction figures were disclosed, the government also clarified that the NCRB does not maintain state-wise data on how many people are currently imprisoned under UAPA, how long they have been in custody, or how many cases have ended in bail, discharge, or acquittal.
For a statute that restricts liberty at the pre-trial stage, this absence is not a minor gap. It limits public understanding of how the law actually works in everyday practice.
Many Arrests, Limited Closure
The NCRB annexure to the Lok Sabha reply provides a year-wise snapshot:
2019: 1,948 arrests; 34 convictions
2020: 1,321 arrests; 80 convictions
2021: 1,621 arrests; 62 convictions
2022: 2,636 arrests; 41 convictions
2023: 2,914 arrests; 118 convictions
Across these five years, arrests under UAPA have increased steadily, while completed convictions remain relatively few.
Conviction figures must be read with care. Terror-related prosecutions are complex, and trials often take years to conclude. Convictions recorded in one year may arise from arrests made much earlier. Even so, the consistent gap between the number of arrests and the number of cases reaching a final outcome is notable.
Earlier parliamentary data for the period between 2016 and 2019 reflected a similar pattern. Studies using NCRB figures have repeatedly shown that a significant number of UAPA cases remain unresolved for long periods. Taken together, the data points to the central importance of the pre-trial phase in understanding the law’s real impact.
Regional Concentration
The figures also show that UAPA is not applied evenly across the country.
These figures do not, by themselves, suggest misuse. Conflict conditions, preventive security measures, and evidentiary challenges all shape how UAPA is invoked. But they do show that in certain regions, the law is used extensively at the arrest stage, while legal closure remains limited.
Once again, the absence of data on undertrials and custody duration becomes significant. Parliament knows how many people are arrested, but not how many remain in prison—or for how long.
Time and Liberty
The structure of UAPA helps explain why prolonged custody is common.
Once a person is arrested under the law, bail is difficult to obtain at an early stage, when evidence has not yet been tested in court. Investigations may be extended, and trials often begin after substantial time has already been spent in custody.
Courts have occasionally intervened to recognise the constitutional implications of such delay. The Supreme Court has held that prolonged incarceration without a realistic prospect of trial can raise concerns under Article 21, which protects personal liberty against indefinite deprivation.
In a recent case from Assam, the Court described it as “appalling” that an accused had spent more than two years in custody without a chargesheet, reiterating that even extended investigations cannot exceed 180 days. Such rulings do not weaken UAPA. They reflect judicial efforts to ensure that a law meant to address exceptional threats does not result in indefinite pre-trial detention.
Lives Behind the Data
Statistics capture scale, but not experience.
Former Delhi University faculty member Hany Babu was arrested in July 2020 and remained in custody for nearly five years before being granted bail, with the court noting that prolonged incarceration without any near prospect of trial raised serious concerns under Article 21.
Umar Khalid, a former JNU scholar, was arrested in September 2020 in connection with the Delhi violence conspiracy case. He has spent more than five years in prison without his trial concluding, with the Supreme Court reserving judgment on his bail appeal.
The latest UAPA figures have performed an important function: they have placed long-standing concerns on the parliamentary record. We now know that arrests are rising, convictions remain comparatively few, and there is no systematic data on undertrials or custody duration. These facts do not prove misuse. But they do call for careful scrutiny.
The data does not tell us who is guilty or innocent — that is for courts to decide. What it does show is that many people are arrested under UAPA, relatively few cases reach conclusion within a reasonable time, and the period in between remains largely unaccounted for.
The task is not to weaken UAPA’s ability to address genuine threats. It is to ensure that its operation remains recognisably faithful to the guarantees under Article 21. The parliamentary data has opened that conversation. Whether institutions are willing to engage with it fully remains the question.
(Sahil Hussain Choudhury is a lawyer and Constitutional Law Researcher based in New Delhi. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed are the author's own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)