A prominent case that has drawn a lot of attention and stirred a lot of controversy in India is Gautam Navlakha v. NIA. It centres on the National Investigation Agency’s (NIA) detention of journalist and human rights activist Gautam Navlakha on suspicion of taking part in the Bhima Koregaon violence case. Questions about human rights, free expression, and the ability of the state to muzzle dissident voices have all been raised by this case. Concerns have also been expressed concerning the growing practise of designating activists as “urban naxals” and putting them at risk of prosecution under harsh laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The matter made it to the Supreme Court, which had to determine whether the petitioner’s 34 days of house arrest could be added to the 90 days needed to request default bail under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The ruling established multiple precedents, including a new level of police and court custody, and offered instructions for making Section 167 home arrest orders.