Bombay High Court Dismisses Review Petition Against Judgment Upholding Constitutional Validity Of UAPA

The Bombay High Court on Thursday (April 29) dismissed a petition seeking to review the judgment, by which the court upheld the validity of various provisions of the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

In July 2025, the High Court had held that the Act can be construed to be 'deterrent' to the commission of unlawful activities, but by no stretch of imagination can it be equated with 'preventive detention.'

A division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Dr Neela Gokhale dismissed the review petition filed by one Anil Baburao Baile, an alleged witness in the Bhima-Koregaon Elgar Parishad case.

Notably, Baile had in 2021 challenged the constitutional validity of the UAPA on the ground that there is no declaration of the date of coming into the effect of the said Act and also that the word 'Prevention' used in it, implies that it is an act which provides for 'prevention' and not for any 'penal' actions. However, by a judgment delivered on July 17, 2025, the bench had dismissed his plea and upheld the validity of the UAPA. 

On Thursday, Baile filed a review petition through advocate Prakash Ambedkar, who argued that the bench did not consider some of the material which was placed on record. However, Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh assisted by Special Public Prosecutor Chintan Shah contended that the grounds raised by Ambedkar were basically grounds available in an appeal and suggested that the petitioner assail the judgment in appeal before the Supreme Court. 

During the hearing, Justice Gadkari sought to know from Ambedkar, if the petitioner has challenged the judgment in the Supreme Court, to which the counsel answered in the negative. 

"We might have committed some mistake... There may be some error in law or mistake in interpretation of law on our part but those cannot be a ground for review .. they can be ground for appeal..." Justice Gadkari told Ambedkar, while agreeing with the ASG.

Weighing in, Justice Gokhale, who heard the petition virtually as she is sitting at the Goa bench, said, "Almost every argument has been dealt with... We have considered all your arguments and also the material which was placed before us. The grounds you raise now are good for an appeal."

Further disagreeing with Ambedkar, who argued that the Government then never notified enforcement of the UAPA law and thus, the ordinance by which it was introduced had lapsed, Justice Gadkari remarked, "After 60 years, you are raising this issue of not being notified etc... so many people have been convicted, discharged and even acquitted and you raise this issue now..."

The bench also refused to consider the suggestion made by Ambedkar to refer the instant matter before a larger bench of the High Court as certain issues have been left out by Justice Gadkari led division bench.

Finally, the bench passed an order, recording, "A perusal of the application in particular the grounds mentioned therein, indicates that what was argued during the final arguments, before us and the material placed before us, was considered and appropriate findings are recorded. There is no apparent error of law in the judgment. The review is thereby dismissed."

The order is yet to be made available. 

Case Title: Anil Baburao Baile vs Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 229