Freelance journalist Rupesh Kumar Singh’s 1,000-day incarceration under the UAPA has sparked nationwide concern over the erosion of the fundamental legal principle that “bail is the rule, jail is the exception.”
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
JHARKHAND: On April 11, 2025, freelance journalist Rupesh Kumar Singh will complete 1,000 days in jail. Arrested on July 17, 2022, under the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), Singh has been repeatedly denied bail, despite the legal principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception”, a cornerstone of Indian criminal jurisprudence.
This prolonged incarceration has triggered an outcry among human rights defenders, fellow journalists, and civil society organisations, who have now written an open letter to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) urging urgent judicial intervention. The letter cites the Supreme Court’s own precedent in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand alias Baliay (1977), where Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer famously asserted:
“The basic rule is bail, not jail.”
This principle has been echoed in numerous subsequent judgments, including Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2011), establishing that bail should be the norm, especially before conviction. Yet, as Rupesh’s case shows, the maxim is increasingly disregarded when it comes to journalists, activists, and dissenters.
Who is Rupesh Kumar Singh?
Rupesh Kumar Singh is a fearless freelance journalist based in Ramgarh district, Jharkhand, known for his in-depth reporting on tribal rights, state repression, unlawful arrests, custodial torture, fake encounters, and the impact of industrial pollution on local communities. Since 2014, his stories have appeared in prominent Hindi publications and digital platforms, earning him recognition and respect for highlighting issues rarely covered by mainstream media.
In 2019, he was also arrested on similar Maoist-related charges but was granted bail due to lack of evidence. However, the 2022 arrest appears to be part of a broader pattern of harassment and criminalisation of independent journalism.
The Arrest and Legal Ordeal
Singh was arrested in connection with Case No. 67/21 registered at the Kandra police station in Seraikela-Kharsawan district of Jharkhand. He was accused of being associated with the banned CPI (Maoist) outfit. Notably, his name was not mentioned in the original FIR. The basis for his arrest came later, allegedly from the interrogation of another accused, during which the police claimed to have recovered SSD cards containing “incriminating material” against him.
This led to a supplementary chargesheet being filed, and Rupesh has since remained in judicial custody under stringent UAPA provisions that make securing bail nearly impossible without satisfying an extraordinarily high threshold of proof that the allegations are prima facie false.
Since his incarceration, four additional cases have been slapped against him — widely perceived by rights groups as fabricated — to ensure prolonged detention without trial. As many legal observers have noted, the process itself has become the punishment.
A Pattern of State Suppression
Singh’s arrest and continued detention reflect a disturbing trend. As his colleagues and supporters note, Rupesh became a target first of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) government, and then of central agencies like the National Investigation Agency (NIA). His sustained coverage of state atrocities and corporate exploitation, particularly in central India’s tribal belts, made him a thorn in the side of those in power.
“This isn’t just about the BJP or RSS,”
a fellow activist said.
“Multiple state governments—irrespective of political affiliations—are increasingly cracking down on journalists who expose anti-people policies.”
The open letter to the CJI asserts that journalists who speak truth to power are systematically surveilled, harassed, and criminalised. In Rupesh’s case, Pegasus spyware was allegedly used to monitor his communications. He was even one of the petitioners in the Supreme Court’s Pegasus surveillance case. Yet, his bail plea was rejected as recently as January 27, 2025.
Family’s Plea for Justice
Rupesh’s wife, Ipsa Shatakshi, a social worker herself, has been tirelessly advocating for his release. She recalls how the police officers, after arresting Rupesh, taunted him with chilling words:
“Bring in Kapil Sibal or Prashant Bhushan. No one can get you out.”
“Today, their words seem prophetic,”
Ipsa laments.
“Even after 1,000 days, Rupesh has not been granted bail. Is investigative journalism now a crime?”
Her fears have only intensified after the Supreme Court dismissed his latest bail application. She continues to raise concerns about his deteriorating health and the mental toll of prolonged incarceration without trial.
“Bail is the Rule”: What the Law Says
In a democratic society governed by the rule of law, pre-trial detention is meant to be the exception, not the norm. The Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2011) observed:
“The object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial… The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the denial of bail is a restriction on his personal liberty.”
Under UAPA, however, the burden of proof is virtually reversed. Bail can be denied if the court finds that accusations are “prima facie true” — a vague and heavily contested legal standard. Critics argue that this has led to misuse of the law to detain activists and journalists for indefinite periods without conviction.
ALSO READ: “Excessive Bail is No Bail”: Supreme Court
Landmark Judgments: Reaffirming Bail as the Norm
- State of Rajasthan v. Balchand alias Baliay (1977) Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer laid the foundation by declaring: “The basic rule is bail, not jail.”
This case emphasized that denial of bail should be an exception, not a routine response. - Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor (1978) Again, Justice Krishna Iyer stressed: “Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand trial when called upon.”
- Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) The Court condemned the continued detention of undertrial prisoners and observed that: “A procedure which keeps such large numbers of people behind bars without trial for so long cannot be reasonable, just or fair.”
- Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2011) The Supreme Court reiterated: “The object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused during trial. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.”
The court granted bail in a high-profile economic offence case, noting that pre-trial detention cannot be used as punishment. - Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) The court cautioned against unnecessary arrests and said: “Arrest is a drastic step. Personal liberty is a constitutional mandate under Article 21, and bail should be granted unless there is a compelling reason.”
- Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) In a UAPA case, the court observed: “Merely because Section 43-D(5) bars bail, it does not prevent constitutional courts from exercising their jurisdiction to protect fundamental rights.”
These judgments represent the evolving legal consensus that pre-trial incarceration—especially in the absence of conclusive evidence—undermines both liberty and justice.
Call for Democratic Unity and Judicial Action
The open letter addressed to the Chief Justice concludes with an urgent appeal:
“We request you to take suo motu cognisance of this injustice. Rupesh Kumar Singh’s continued incarceration is a grave violation of fundamental rights. If the judiciary fails to intervene, the message is clear — journalism that questions power is punishable by indefinite imprisonment.”
The signatories — journalists, lawyers, professors, and human rights defenders — urge democratic organisations to unite and demand Rupesh’s immediate release.
A Test of Constitutional Values
Rupesh Kumar Singh’s case is not just about one man; it is a litmus test for India’s democratic and judicial institutions. If those who expose the truth are jailed while the powerful go unchecked, the constitutional promise of free speech, due process, and personal liberty rings hollow.
As Rupesh marks 1,000 days behind bars, the question lingers — will the courts remember their own guiding principle, or will exceptions continue to replace the rule?
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE
