Civil society figures, including writers, filmmakers, and academics, have written an open letter to the Chief Justice of India invoking the Supreme Court's doctrine that 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception.' They seek release of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, both detained under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for over four years without trial conclusion. The letter highlights how UAPA's stringent bail conditions effectively invert the constitutional presumption of innocence.

The phrase 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' originates from the Supreme Court's repeated articulation of Article 21's guarantee of personal liberty. The foundational case is Gudikanti Narasimhulu (1978), reinforced in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) and most recently in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022), where the Court directed courts to apply this principle actively and even instructed Parliament to enact a standalone bail law.

However, UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act) creates a statutory carve-out. Section 43D(5) of UAPA prohibits a court from granting bail if, on a perusal of the case diary or report, the court is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accusation is prima facie true. This threshold is far lower than proof of guilt, yet it effectively reverses the bail presumption. The Supreme Court in NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) held that at the bail stage under UAPA, courts must accept the prosecution's case largely at face value, making bail exceptionally difficult.

The tension, therefore, is constitutional: Article 21 guarantees liberty; UAPA Section 43D(5) restricts it through a special procedural filter. CLAT PG examiners love this tension because it requires the aspirant to distinguish between the general CrPC/BNSS bail framework and special legislation exceptions — a classic statutory interpretation problem.