cases where the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" applies,

Former officers challenge UAPA provisions "to suppress legal dissent", Supreme Court issues notice
 Case Name: Amitabh Pandey and Others vs Union of India

 "Therefore, in cases where the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" applies, and if a statute prevents or restricts the application of the principle, the statute is pre-emptive, unconstitutional and invalid," the petition submits.

 The petition further submits by relying on Ranjitsingh Brahmjit Singh Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra (2005) 5 SCC 294 and Deepak Bhai Jagdish Chandra Patel vs. State of Gujarat 2019 (16) SCC 547 and Union of India vs. K A Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713  That the Supreme Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 32, has vested powers to frame guidelines for granting bail in cases under UAPA, to ensure that they are followed by the courts.  The provisions of UAPA cannot be applied arbitrarily, indiscriminately and maliciously merely to prevent dissent.

 The petition also relies on Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India 2018 (11) SCC 1 and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 (1) SCC to argue that the law lacks constitutionality where manifest arbitrariness is present.