The Supreme Court today expressed scepticism over a challenge to a conviction under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), stressing that the appellant must first establish perversity in the findings of the lower courts before seeking interference. Notably, the Delhi High Court had dismissed an appeal against the conviction in December 2024.

During the hearing, counsel for the appellant argued that the conviction was based on weak and unreliable evidence, including witness testimonies that allegedly did not establish recruitment for terrorist activities and procedural lapses in handling key material such as audio recordings.

It was contended that one witness merely referred to a job offer, which could not be equated with inducement into terrorism, while another witness admitted to police influence. The counsel also pointed to gaps in the chain of custody and the absence of mandatory certifications for electronic evidence.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, however, repeatedly questioned the line of argument, emphasising the limited scope of interference at this stage and the need to demonstrate clear perversity in appreciation of evidence.

“You have to first make out a case of perversity…You were convicted by the trial court… and High Court has really done a commendable job assuming the role of a trial code, analysing the entire evidence, reproducing the relevant extracts which goes against you and which is relied upon..in a judgment running into hundreds of pages.”

The Court ultimately indicated that arguments on reasonable doubt must be grounded in the overall evidentiary record rather than isolated discrepancies.