Published On: June 7th 2026
Authored By: Varshini R
The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University Chennai
Case Details
Full Case Name: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dayamoy Mahato
Citation: 2025 SCC Online SC 2775
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Date of Judgment: 11 December 2025
I. Introduction
In recent years, India’s criminal justice landscape has witnessed a growing reliance on special legislation such as the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA), enacted to address grave threats including terrorism and offences against national security. While such statutes serve a legitimate legislative purpose, their application raises critical questions about the protection of individual rights, particularly when trials extend over prolonged periods without resolution.
A defining feature of such special laws is the reversal of the burden of proof. Unlike ordinary criminal proceedings, where the prosecution bears the burden of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, certain provisions under the UAPA require the accused to demonstrate grounds for believing that charges against them are not prima facie true. This creates a structurally disadvantaged position for the accused, making bail exceptionally difficult to secure. When combined with prolonged trial delays, such provisions risk converting pre-trial custody into de facto punishment.
The case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dayamoy Mahato (2025) crystallises this tension between national security imperatives and the fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This case comment examines the facts, judicial reasoning, and broader constitutional implications of the judgment.
II. Facts of the Case
The accused, Dayamoy Mahato, was arrested in connection with offences allegedly linked to unlawful activities. The investigation was conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and the charges, serious in nature, were framed under provisions of special criminal legislation carrying stringent bail conditions.
Following arrest, the accused remained in custody for an extended period as the trial failed to progress at a reasonable pace. The delays were attributed to several factors, including procedural complications, the complexity of evidence, and the overall nature of the case. The accused subsequently applied for bail, contending that continued detention violated his fundamental rights under the Constitution, particularly given that the trial was far from completion and indefinite incarceration without conviction was constitutionally impermissible. The prosecution opposed bail, relying on the strict statutory framework that places a heightened burden of proof on the accused and limits the grounds on which bail may be granted.
III. Issues Before the Court
1. Whether prolonged pre-trial detention violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. Whether strict bail provisions under special laws such as the UAPA override fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
3. How courts must balance national security concerns against the individual’s right to personal liberty.
4. Whether the application of reverse burden of proof provisions affects the grant of bail in long-pending trials.
IV. Arguments
Arguments by the Prosecution (CBI)
The prosecution submitted that the allegations against the accused were of a serious nature, directly implicating activities threatening national security. It was emphasised that statutes like the UAPA are deliberately designed to be stringent, given the extraordinary circumstances they are intended to address.
Further, the prosecution contended that the statute itself imposes clear limitations on the grant of bail, and the Court ought not to dilute these provisions merely on account of trial delays. The reverse burden of proof, the prosecution argued, is a conscious legislative choice: in specified circumstances, the accused bears the responsibility of demonstrating that there are reasonable grounds to believe the charges are not substantiated.
Arguments by the Defence (Accused)
The defence submitted that irrespective of the gravity of the charges, the constitutional guarantee of life and personal liberty under Article 21 remains inviolable. Prolonged incarceration without the conclusion of trial, it was argued, is constitutionally impermissible and amounts to punishment preceding any adjudication of guilt.
The defence further highlighted that the reverse burden of proof, combined with prolonged trial delays, effectively results in punishment without conviction, fundamentally undermining the presumption of innocence. It was also urged that bail cannot be denied mechanically; courts are obligated to assess whether continued detention remains justified, particularly where the trial is unlikely to conclude within a foreseeable time.
V. Judgment
The Court approached the matter by engaging with broader constitutional principles rather than limiting its analysis to the statutory restrictions. It held that prolonged pre-trial detention, even under a special statute with a reverse burden of proof, cannot be indefinitely sustained if the trial fails to progress meaningfully. The right to personal liberty under Article 21, the Court observed, does not stand suspended merely because an accused is charged under special legislation.
The Court further recognised that indefinite detention undermines the presumption of innocence, which constitutes a foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence. While affirming the constitutional validity of special statutes such as the UAPA, the Court held that their application must remain aligned with constitutional safeguards. Accordingly, the Court granted relief to the accused subject to appropriate conditions.
VI. Ratio Decidendi
Even under special statutes imposing a reverse burden of proof, prolonged pre-trial detention without reasonable progress in trial can violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Courts must balance statutory restrictions with constitutional guarantees of personal liberty, and no legislative provision can serve as a blanket justification for indefinite incarceration without trial.
VII. Critical Analysis
This judgment reflects a deeper structural tension within India’s criminal justice system. On one hand, there is a genuine and pressing need to address serious offences, particularly those involving national security, through robust legal mechanisms. On the other hand, the risk of violating individual rights in the process cannot be dismissed as an acceptable cost.
The problem of trial delays is a systemic one that no special statute can override. Prolonged pre-trial detention, in the absence of timely adjudication, transforms a presumed-innocent accused into a de facto convict. The axiom that justice delayed is justice denied acquires particular force in cases involving special laws, where bail conditions are already heavily tilted against the accused.
The reverse burden provisions in statutes such as the UAPA, while permissible in principle, have a disproportionate practical impact on the accused. When an individual must establish the absence of a prima facie case against themselves while simultaneously remaining in custody, the procedural deck is stacked against them in a manner that strains constitutional principles. This concern is compounded significantly when trials stretch on for years without resolution.
The Court’s approach in this case is, on balance, a measured and constitutionally sound one. It does not question the validity or legislative necessity of special laws but insists that their application must at all times conform to constitutional guarantees. The judgment appropriately signals that courts cannot remain passive spectators when procedural delays cause manifest injustice; judicial intervention in such circumstances is not merely permissible but constitutionally required.
VIII. Conclusion
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dayamoy Mahato (2025) presents a significant judicial statement on the limits of special legislation in the face of constitutional guarantees. While statutes like the UAPA are necessary instruments for addressing extraordinary threats to public order, their strict provisions must not be allowed to produce unjust outcomes. Prolonged detention, particularly in combination with the reverse burden of proof, creates a serious risk of pre-conviction punishment that the Constitution does not permit.
The judgment reaffirms that personal liberty, the presumption of innocence, and the right to a fair trial are not merely procedural technicalities but substantive constitutional values that must guide every stage of criminal proceedings. Even in the most sensitive cases involving national security, the Constitution remains the supreme and non-negotiable framework within which all legal action must be situated.
