UAPA

Democracy, Dissent & Draconian Laws : UAPA & Sedition  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2hiy3OU78Y 

In UAPA Cases The Process Itself The Punishment, It Stares Us In The Face In The Death Of Father Stan Swamy Without Trial: Justice Aftab Alam Mehal J https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/uapa-cases-the-process-itself-the-punishment-stares--death-of-father-stan-swamy-justice-aftab-alam-178112

"Right To Question Govt Is The Essence Of Democracy, Sedition Law Should Be Shown The Door As Soon As Possible": Justice Deepak Gupta https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/sedition-law-justice-deepak-gupta-section-124a-right-to-question-govt-178090

In comment:

Manoj Jain: Majority section is suffering illegal incarceration due to non punishment of Judicial Magistrates for failure to comply with direction contained in Arnesh Kumar.

Sedition Has No Room in Modern Democracies, Time for The Law to Be Repealed https://thewire.in/rights/sedition-law-democracy-rights-repeal-misuse 
The law has been misused and abused several times even though convictions are extremely rare.

Individuals charged with sedition have to live without their passport, are barred from government jobs and must produce themselves in court at all times as and when required – if they have got bail, that is. The legal costs, the time involved, the effort and the stress for the accused are enormous. The charges have rarely stuck in most cases, but the process itself becomes the punishment. It is so difficult to fight a legal system, even if the system is not biased. And if it is?

In a 2018 Consultation Paper on Sedition, the 21st Law Commission said:

“Democracy is not another name of majoritarianism, on the contrary, it is a system to include every voice, where thought of every person is counted, irrespective of the number of the people backing that idea. In a democracy, it is natural that there will be different and conflicting interpretations of a given account of an event. Not only viewpoints which constitute the majority are to be considered, but at the same time, dissenting and critical opinions should also be acknowledged. Free speech is protected because it is necessary to achieve some greater, often ultimate, social good. In the unforgettable words of Charles Bradlaugh: Better a thousand fold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day but the denial slays the life of the people and entombs the hopes of the race.”

Free India has used a series of laws to control the personal freedom of those who have spoken against the policies of the state. Perhaps the most significant today are the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), both of which use the basic argument of division, of “we versus them”. But the colonial provision of S124A is perhaps the worst – it can make a loyal Indian anti-national by the stroke of a dishonest policeman’s pen in an FIR. It is a law that Macaulay himself did not want in his IPC. It is time that, in independent India, that law goes. Abhijit Sengupta is a former secretary, Government of India.

[Sedition] These are the 7 petitions in Supreme Court challenging Section 124A IPC https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/sedition-7-petitions-in-supreme-court-challenging-section-124a-ipc 

also includes links to pdfs all the seven petitions.. 

Bengaluru Riots: Karnataka HC Grants Default Bail to 115 People Charged Under UAPA https://thewire.in/law/bengaluru-riots-karnataka-hc-grants-default-bail-to-115-people-charged-under-uapa The National Investigation Agency had failed to bring a case against the accused during the first 90 days after their arrest.  

According to LiveLaw, Justice Shetty said, “The fundamental right of an individual recognized under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be defeated other than in accordance with law. Since the order passed by the trial court on the application filed by the prosecution seeking extension of time for completion of the investigation is already held to be bad in law, the statutory right that has accrued to the petitioners/accused immediately after the completion of the first 90 days of period which right has been availed of by them by filing an application under Section 167(2) of the Code, seeking statutory bail and also offering surety cannot be denied to the petitioners/accused.”

The court also did not entertain the prosecution’s contention that the accused can apply for regular bail as it had already filed a charge sheet after the trial court had extended the time period for the probe in November 2020.