“This is the best day to send a message,” remarked a judge of the Supreme Court on 11 November, as the Bench denied bail to a person accused in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The ruling for this individual came just a day after the terror attack in the national capital.
The rationale behind calling it the “best day”, as many inferred, appeared rooted more in the judge’s sentiments in the aftermath of the attack — an observation that seemed more moralistic than judicial, and arguably at odds with the Court’s duty to decide strictly on the basis of law.
Across India, scores of citizens are being summoned, questioned, or informally detained by counter-terror agencies such as the NIA (National Investigation Agency), the Maharashtra ATS (Anti-Terrorism Squad), and the Delhi Police Special Cell.
But since 10 November, multiple accounts suggest a growing collapse of procedural norms — where the gravity of a terror investigation is allowed to overshadow the constitutional safeguards to which every individual is entitled.
This erosion was underscored by the judge’s remarks on 11 November.
Yet, in contrast, the NIA’s decision to release the three doctors detained in the Delhi blasts case — after finding no evidence — demonstrated precisely the kind of restraint and integrity that India’s investigative machinery often lacks in high-voltage cases marked by sweeping allegations of global conspiracies and “jihadi networks”.