Context
- Recently, the Delhi Police, represented by the Additional Solicitor General (ASG), requested the Supreme Court to refer the contentious issue of statutory bail restrictions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) to a larger Bench for review.
- The dispute centers on whether prolonged pre-trial detention and delayed trials can override the stringent bail provisions of UAPA, raising critical questions about balancing national security with the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21.
1. Core Legal Disputes & Judicial Observations
- The Conflicting Judgments:
- A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan granted bail to a narco-terror accused, reiterating that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” even under UAPA, when there is excessive delay in trial and prolonged incarceration.
- In contrast, a coordinate Bench in the Umar Khalid case denied bail to the 2020 Delhi riots accused.
- Prosecution’s Core Argument: Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju argued that under the strict provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), bail cannot be granted easily to an accused person. The use of the word “shall” in the law reflects the legislature’s intention to maintain a strict approach toward bail.
- Important Judgment in the K.A. Najeeb Case (2021): In Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, the Supreme Court held that if there is excessive delay in the trial process and the accused’s fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is violated, courts can grant bail even under the stringent provisions of UAPA.
2. About the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA)
- The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) is India’s primary anti-terror law, first enacted in 1967. It is designed to prevent unlawful activities and combat terrorist acts that threaten the sovereignty, integrity, and security of India
- Punishment: Carries severe penal provisions; the highest punishments under this Act include the death penalty and life imprisonment.
- Territorial Jurisdiction: It applies to both Indian citizens and foreign nationals. It is extraterritorial in nature—meaning individuals can be charged under this Act even if the crime is committed on foreign soil outside India.
- The 2019 Amendment: Empowered the Central Government to designate not just organizations, but individual persons as ‘Terrorists’ if they commit, prepare for, or promote terrorism.
- Stringent Bail Conditions: Bail is extremely difficult to obtain. Under Section 43D(5), a court can deny bail if it is of the opinion that there is a prima facie case that the allegations are true.
- Property Seizure: The Director General of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) is empowered to grant approval for the seizure or attachment of properties during a UAPA investigation
3. Constitutional Balancing Tool: Article 21 vs. Statutory Laws
- Speedy Trial as a Fundamental Right: The Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to a speedy trial is an integral part of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty wrapped under Article 21.
- While statutory laws (like UAPA passed by the Parliament) can place restrictions on bail, they cannot completely abrogate or override constitutional fundamental rights. If an individual is jailed for a prolonged period without trial, statutory restrictions like Section 43D(5) yield to the enforcement of Article 21 by constitutional courts.
About Article 21
- Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the fundamental right to protection of life and personal liberty, stating: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law.”
- It is available to all citizens and non-citizens alike.
- Through landmark Supreme Court judgments, Article 21 has been interpreted to encompass a vast array of rights that contribute to a dignified human life. Some of the recognized rights include:
- Right to Privacy: Established as an intrinsic part of life and liberty (K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India).
- Right to Livelihood: Recognized as a component of the right to life (Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation).
- Right to a Clean Environment: Protection against pollution and environmental degradation.
- Right to Health and Medical Care: Ensures timely medical treatment and safeguards bodily integrity.
- Right to Speedy Trial: Protection against prolonged incarceration without trial (Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb).
- Right to Education: Elevated to a separate, specific fundamental right under Article 21A for children aged 6 to 14.
Consider the following statements regarding the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA):
1. UAPA imposes stringent conditions on granting bail to an accused person.
2. Courts cannot grant bail under UAPA even if there is an extraordinary delay in trial proceedings.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither 1 nor 2
Answer: A
Explanation:
• Statement 1 is correct: UAPA contains strict provisions that make granting bail difficult in terrorism-related cases.
• Statement 2 is incorrect: in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021), the Supreme Court held that courts can grant bail if there is an excessive delay in trial and the accused’s right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is violated.
