Suggest reforms to India's anti-terror legal framework to prevent prolonged undertrial detention while preserving its effectiveness.

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 allows up to 180 days' custody before a charge sheet and bars bail where accusations appear "prima facie true" (Section 43D) [1]. About three in four Indian prisoners are undertrials [3], so the process itself risks becoming the punishment. Reform should recalibrate the law, not dilute it.

Why reform is needed

• Strict bail bar: Section 43D(5) effectively reverses the rule that "bail is the rule, jail the exception", while trials drag on for years [1].
• Outcomes and accountability: The Home Ministry's replies to Parliament show that convictions are a small fraction of UAPA arrests. There is also no compensation for those acquitted [7].

Reforms to curb prolonged detention

• Statutory bail on delay: Write K.A. Najeeb (2021) into law. That ruling held that Article 21 can override Section 43D(5) when a trial is unduly delayed [4].
• Narrow definitions: Require specific intent and overt acts for "unlawful activity" and "terrorist act". This would end guilt by association.
• Real scrutiny at bail: Courts should test the prosecution's evidence instead of accepting it at face value. They should also give written reasons when they refuse bail.
• Time-bound trials: Hold day-to-day hearings in adequately staffed special courts, with fixed timelines for investigation.
• Bail law: Pass the stand-alone Bail Act recommended in Satender Kumar Antil (2022) [5].
• Compensation: Create statutory compensation for wrongful prosecution, decided by special courts in each district, as Law Commission Report No. 277 (2018) recommends [6].
• Oversight: Set up independent review of sanctions to prosecute. Periodically review the designations of individuals as terrorists that the 2019 amendment allowed [2].

Preserving effectiveness

• Keep designation, terror-financing and NIA investigative powers for genuine terrorist and Left-Wing Extremist threats [2].
• Improve conviction quality through better forensic capacity, specialised prosecutors and witness protection, so that weak cases are filtered out early.
• Use calibrated bail conditions, such as regular police reporting, instead of blanket denial, as the Court did in Najeeb [4].

A law that detains many but convicts few weakens both liberty and security. Swift trials, precise definitions and accountability would sharpen UAPA against real threats while honouring Article 21's guarantee of fair procedure. National security and constitutional liberty can then strengthen each other.