All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen chief Asaduddin Owaisi has mounted a sharp attack on the Congress party, accusing it of entrenching the harshest features of the Unlawful Activities Act and laying the groundwork for what he describes as prolonged incarceration of undertrial prisoners. The Hyderabad MP said amendments carried out when P Chidambaram held the Union home affairs portfolio continue to shape policing and prosecution practices that restrict bail and stretch pre-trial detention for years.Speaking at public meetings and in media interactions, Owaisi argued that the statute’s architecture was decisively altered during Congress-led governments, particularly through changes that expanded the definition of unlawful activity and strengthened investigative powers. He maintained that these shifts created a legal environment in which undertrials face long periods in custody without conviction, citing the cases of scholars Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam as emblematic.
The UAPA, first enacted in 1967, has undergone multiple revisions across administrations. While the law predates Congress’s later tenures in power, Owaisi contends that key amendments between 2004 and 2014 hardened the statute. Among the most consequential, he says, were provisions that effectively reversed the presumption of bail, made detention periods longer during investigation, and widened the scope for branding associations and speech as unlawful. “Once those doors were opened, later governments only walked through them,” he has said, insisting that responsibility must be shared by those who framed the changes.
Congress leaders have rejected the charge, countering that amendments were introduced in response to security threats and judicial scrutiny, and that safeguards exist through courts. Party spokespersons point out that the law has also been modified under subsequent governments, including changes that allow individuals to be designated as terrorists, arguing that the current regime has used the Act far more aggressively. They maintain that decisions on bail and custody are judicial, not political.
The debate has re-energised a long-running argument about balance between national security and civil liberties. Legal scholars note that UAPA cases are marked by low conviction rates compared with the length of custody many accused face before trial. Critics argue that stringent bail clauses and expansive definitions tilt the scales heavily in favour of the state. Supporters of the law say complex investigations into alleged conspiracies require time and that the statute includes checks through courts and review committees.
Owaisi’s intervention is politically pointed as well as legal. His party, All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen, has sought to distinguish itself from the Indian National Congress on civil liberties, particularly in debates around policing, citizenship, and minority rights. By focusing on Congress-era amendments, he aims to puncture claims that the party offers a clean break from current security policies.
The cases of Khalid and Imam underscore the controversy. Both were arrested under UAPA provisions linked to alleged conspiracies surrounding protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act. Their supporters argue that evidence is weak and that incarceration itself has become punitive. Prosecutors have insisted that charges involve serious allegations and that trials must run their course. Courts have delivered mixed outcomes on interim relief, reinforcing criticism that the law’s structure makes bail the exception.
Data trends add to the scrutiny. Rights groups have consistently highlighted the gap between arrests and convictions under the Act, while also noting that trials often extend for years. Government responses have stressed that statistics alone do not capture the preventive purpose of counter-terror legislation and that acquittals can occur for varied reasons, including evidentiary thresholds.