The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act makes bail difficult for those charged under it. It seems, however, that clapping UAPA on persons by accusing them of Maoist links, of plots to incite violence and conspiracy against the State, gives authorities a free hand to curtail the freedom of the accused even after bail is granted. Of the 16 people arrested under the UAPA for the Bhima-Koregaon violence in 2018, 14 were granted bail after an average of five years or more. Surendra Gadling, a lawyer known for defending those charged under the UAPA, including villagers in Naxal-dominated areas, is still in prison. The elderly priest, Stan Swamy, died in prison without bail in 2021. Although the violence in Bhima-Koregaon was perpetrated by ‘unknown persons’ and the police had first charged members of right-wing forces for it, they followed it up by arresting academics, journalists, lawyers and writers known for championing the rights of the underprivileged, whether Dalits, Adivasis or villagers in high-risk areas.

Yet, after eight years, no charges have been framed. Generally charges are meant to be framed by 90 days, a period that can be extended to 180 days with court permission. Eight years seem to be a rather long time, even for the UAPA. Can the accused continue to be confined or restricted after that? Even the conditions of bail are extraordinarily stringent. The Supreme Court’s — and the Constitution’s — insistence on the primacy of the right to liberty seems to have had no effect on this. Many of the accused are confined to cities that are not their home with serious attendant difficulties. They cannot travel; the National Investigation Agency keeps track of Arun Ferreira and Vernon Gonsalves’s whereabouts, for example; Mahesh Raut cannot go to Kerala for treatment or Shoma Sen may not visit her daughter — the list could go on. In 2022, the Bombay High Court had said that it could not be immediately concluded that some accused, such as Anand Teltumbde, had committed terrorist acts, and the lawyer, Sudha Bharadwaj, was granted bail as charges had not been framed in the mandatory period. Yet the accused are being punished in multiple ways; the confinement continues outside prison too. This is a shocking failure of the operations of justice that brings up disturbing questions about the commitment to the Constitution. This is certainly not what the Indian justice system should be known for.