This decision represents a win for justice, civil freedoms, and the integrity of the legal system. The SC ruled that their arrests made in accordance with the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) were unlawful, highlighting the significance of following proper arrest protocols and defending individual rights.
Concerns concerning the abuse of anti-terror laws to target individuals and suppress dissent had been raised by the two incidents. Purkayastha and Navlakha were detained in relation to the Bhima Koregaon case and purported foreign sponsorship and anti-national acts, respectively.
Source: The Hindu
Both arrests sparked a backlash from civil society and international observers due to criticism that they lacked solid evidence and followed the correct procedures.The SC has often emphasised that bail should be the rule rather than the exception, even as it reiterates the protection of human freedom against arbitrary governmental action.
In Purkayastha’s case, it emphasised the lack of concrete evidence connecting him to any illegal activity and chastised the authorities for exceeding the bounds of the law in their haste to make an arrest. In the case of Navlakha, it highlighted procedural flaws and emphasised the necessity of strictly adhering to the law while making an arrest for serious offences.
Source: Moneycontrol
The fact that their arrests were overturned serves as more evidence that dissent and action are not just acceptable but necessary components of a healthy democracy.These incidents demonstrate the necessity of reforming the way the UAPA and related legislation are applied.
Although national security is of utmost importance, the abuse of such legislation for political ends undermines public confidence in the legal system and infringes upon fundamental rights. The court’s ruling must be taken seriously by legislators and law enforcement, who must endeavour to create a framework that really defends the liberties and rights of every individual.
What do you think about this? Comment below.
