Supreme Court flags poor conviction rate in UAPA cases, 94-98 percent trials end in acquittal

The Supreme Court on Monday took note of the poor conviction rate in cases registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), observing that over 90 per cent of such trials end in acquittals [Syed Iftikhar Andrabi Vs. National Investigation Agency, Jammu].

A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan made the observation while granting bail to a Kupwara resident who had been in jail since June 2020, awaiting trial in connection with a narco-terrorism case.

The Court referred to official crime statistics to note that the pan-India conviction rate in UAPA cases between 2019 and 2023 was 2-6 per cent, meaning there was a 94-98 per cent chance that a UAPA accused would be acquitted at the end of his trial.

"We have quoted statistics from National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). For the five years from 2019 to 2023, the all-India figures show that the rate of conviction minimum is 1.5% and the maximum is 4%, whereas in the case of Jammu and Kashmir, the rate of conviction in 2019 was zero, and the maximum was in 2022 at 0.89%. Therefore, for the all-India figures, we have 2% to 6% convictions, meaning thereby that there is a 94% to 98% possibility of acquittal in such cases in the country," the Court said.

The annual conviction rate in Jammu and Kashmir was even less, being below 1 per cent, the Court further noted. This meant that, according to NCRB statistics, there was a 99 per cent chance that such an undertrial UAPA accused could be acquitted at the end of trial. 

"So far as the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir is concerned, the annual rate of conviction is always less than 1%. It means that at the end of the trial, there is a 99% possibility of acquittal in such cases," the Court observed. 

In the same judgment, the Court has also questioned the correctness of its another Bench's observations in a judgment denying bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case.

Both have been in jail since 2020 on UAPA charges. In the case of Gulfisha Fatima v. State, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court denied Khalid and Imam bail, while granting bail to some others accused in the same case.

The Court, in its January 2026 ruling, held that Khalid and Imam stand on a different footing from other accused, owing to the nature of their alleged roles.

Today, however, the Bench of Justices Nagarathna and Bhuyan observed that the Gulfisha Fatima judgment diluted a larger, three-judge Bench ruling in the case of Union of India v. KA Najeeb. In Najeeb, the Court had held that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution would apply to even UAPA accused, and ruled that such persons cannot indefinitely be kept in jail as undertrial prisoners.

In today's judgment, the Court observed that the Najeeb ruling could not have been diluted by a Division Bench and that bail should be treated as the rule and jail the exception even in UAPA cases.