The latest observations from the supreme court have once again drawn attention to the troubling reality of prosecutions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Data presented in court shows conviction rates across the country hovering between two and six per cent over the past five years, with acquittals accounting for more than ninety per cent of trials. In Jammu and Kashmir, the picture is even bleaker, with conviction rates consistently below one per cent. These figures raise fundamental questions about the efficacy of the law, the fairness of prolonged detentions, and the credibility of investigations that fail to withstand judicial scrutiny.
The court’s remarks came in the context of a narco‑terror case, where the accused had been denied bail earlier but was granted relief after the bench noted the absence of recoveries, the reliance on police statements, and the lack of prior antecedents. The judges pointed out that confessions recorded before police are inadmissible under the Evidence Act, and that no material had been placed on record to establish direct involvement in narcotics or terror activities.
The broader pattern of UAPA prosecutions reveals a troubling reliance on extended incarceration rather than successful trials. The law was designed as a stringent instrument to deal with threats to national security, but its implementation has often resulted in prolonged pre‑trial detention, with trials dragging on for years and ending in acquittals. For those accused, the punishment lies not in conviction but in the process itself; years spent behind bars, reputations destroyed, and families left in limbo. For society, the outcome is equally corrosive: faith in justice erodes when laws are perceived as tools of detention rather than instruments of accountability.
Authorities have alleged cross‑border smuggling of heroin, with proceeds used to fund militant groups. Such claims underscore the dangerous nexus between narcotics and terrorism, a reality that cannot be ignored. Yet, when prosecutions fail to produce convictions, the narrative itself risks being undermined. If evidence is not gathered in a manner that can withstand judicial scrutiny, the larger fight against narco‑terror loses credibility
A conviction rate of less than one per cent in Jammu and Kashmir is not merely a statistic; it is a reflection of systemic weakness. It suggests that either investigations are flawed, or charges are framed without sufficient evidence, or trials are not pursued with the rigor required. Whatever the reason, the outcome is the same: acquittals that cast doubt on the legitimacy of the process. In such a scenario, the question posed by the bench; whether detention should continue simply because charges are serious; becomes unavoidable.
Laws designed to protect national security must not become instruments of indefinite incarceration. The credibility of the justice system depends on convictions secured through fair trials, not on the number of arrests made or properties attached. When conviction rates are this low, the system risks losing both moral and legal authority. The fight against terrorism and narcotics requires strength, but strength must be matched with fairness. Otherwise, the very principles that the law seeks to defend; constitutional rights, democratic values, and public trust; stand weakened.
The court’s observations should serve as a wake‑up call. They remind us that justice cannot be measured by arrests alone, nor by the severity of charges, but by the ability of the system to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
If trials continue to collapse, the law itself risks being seen as punitive rather than protective. For a society grappling with the twin challenges of narcotics and terrorism, that is a risk too great to ignore.
