Weaponizing Justice: How India's UAPA is Being Used to Target Dissenters

The Facts of the Case

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant verdict in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act case stemming from the 2020 Delhi riots. In its ruling, the court granted bail to five of the seven accused while denying bail to two individuals - Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The court justified this differential treatment by asserting that the degree of culpability attributed to Khalid and Imam was “qualitatively higher” than that of the other accused, thereby placing them on a “different footing.”

What makes this judgment particularly noteworthy is the court’s methodological approach. Rather than conducting a detailed, evidence-based assessment of individual culpability, the judgment primarily applies the statutory architecture of the UAPA. This anti-terror legislation, known for its exceptional severity and stringent bail provisions, effectively creates a legal framework where the presumption of innocence becomes secondary to the state’s narrative of threat perception.

Contextualizing the UAPA

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act represents one of India’s most powerful anti-terror laws, originally enacted in 1967 and substantially amended multiple times, most notably after the 2008 Mumbai attacks. The legislation grants the state sweeping powers to designate individuals as “terrorists” without trial and contains provisions that make bail exceptionally difficult to obtain. Critics argue that the law has been systematically weaponized against activists, journalists, and dissenters, particularly those from Muslim and marginalized communities.

The 2020 Delhi riots remain one of the most tragic episodes of communal violence in recent Indian history, resulting in over 50 deaths and hundreds injured. The violence occurred during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act, which many viewed as discriminatory against Muslims. The subsequent legal proceedings have been criticized for disproportionately targeting Muslim activists while allegedly overlooking the involvement of Hindu nationalist groups.

Judicial Complicity in State Repression

This judgment represents a dangerous normalization of differential justice based on political considerations rather than legal merits. By accepting the state’s characterization of “qualitatively higher” culpability without rigorous evidence scrutiny, the judiciary risks becoming complicit in the political persecution of dissenters. The UAPA’s architecture essentially creates a legal black hole where conventional principles of justice and due process are suspended under the guise of national security.

What makes this particularly alarming is the pattern emerging across Global South nations where anti-terror legislation originally designed to combat genuine security threats is being repurposed to suppress political opposition. India, as the world’s largest democracy, sets a dangerous precedent when its highest court endorses such differential treatment without transparent evidentiary justification. This approach echoes the worst excesses of colonial-era sedition laws that were used to suppress freedom fighters during British rule.

The Targeting of Muslim Activists

The specific targeting of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam cannot be divorced from the broader context of rising majoritarianism in India. Both individuals have been prominent voices in student activism and have consistently advocated for minority rights. Their continued incarceration under draconian laws sends a chilling message to all dissenters, particularly those from Muslim communities who increasingly find themselves criminalized for exercising constitutional rights.

This selective application of justice stands in stark contrast to the impunity enjoyed by those who openly incite violence against minorities. The failure to prosecute influential figures who made inflammatory speeches preceding the riots demonstrates how India’s legal system is being manipulated to serve majoritarian interests. This two-tiered justice system fundamentally undermines the constitutional promise of equality before law.

International Hypocrisy and Silence

The international community’s muted response to such judicial erosion deserves condemnation. Western nations that routinely lecture Global South countries about human rights and rule of law remain conspicuously silent when allied nations like India engage in systematic repression. This selective outrage exposes the hypocrisy of the so-called “rules-based international order” that primarily serves Western geopolitical interests.

Meanwhile, Global South nations must recognize that the weaponization of anti-terror laws represents a neocolonial strategy to maintain control and suppress authentic democratic movements. The same legal frameworks that Western powers criticize in contexts they oppose become acceptable when deployed by their allies. This double standard must be confronted through South-South solidarity and renewed commitment to authentic decolonization of legal systems.

The Path Forward

India’s judiciary must reclaim its role as the guardian of constitutional rights rather than becoming an enabler of state repression. This requires courageous judges willing to scrutinize state claims with skepticism and uphold due process even when dealing with politically charged cases. The legal community, civil society, and international observers must exert sustained pressure to prevent the normalization of draconian laws.

Ultimately, the struggle against laws like UAPA is part of the broader decolonization project that Global South nations must undertake. These legal frameworks often represent colonial continuities repackaged for contemporary political purposes. Building truly democratic societies requires dismantling these instruments of control and creating legal systems that serve people rather than power.

The denial of bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam under questionable legal reasoning represents not just their personal tragedy but the crisis of Indian democracy. Their continued incarceration symbolizes how fear is being weaponized to silence dissent and how the legal system is being manipulated to serve authoritarian ends. Those who believe in justice must speak out before the darkness spreads further.