Authored By: Chinki Gera
Geeta Institute of Law
Union of India v K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Surya Kant, Justice N.V. Ramana and Justice Aniruddha Bose
Citation: (2021) 3 SCC 713
Date of Decision: 1 February 2021
Introduction
The decision in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, is an important judgment of the Supreme Court of India, in the exercise of the primacy of fundamental rights especially the right to life and personal liberty in Article 21 of the Constitution, in the context of strict regime of anti-terrorism legislation. The main issue for the Court was whether an undertrial prisoner, prosecuted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), can be granted bail on the basis of a prolonged incarceration, notwithstanding the statutory limits placed on bail under the UAPA statute.
Facts of the Case
This case arose from a vicious assault on a professor in the state of Kerala in 2010 by members of the Popular Front of India (PFI). The professor had set a question paper in which it was alleged that he had hurt religious sentiments and in retaliation, a group of PFI members hatched a conspiracy to attack the professor, right hand was amputated in the attack. K.A. Najeeb was alleged to be the chief conspirator in this attack. Najeeb was arrested by the National Investigating Agency (NIA) in 2015, and charged with several offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the UAPA. The offences included rioting, criminal conspiracy, attempts to murder, and commission of terrorist acts. Najeeb had remained in custody for a little over 5 years, during which very little progress was made in trial. Out of total 276 witnesses who were supposed to be examined only a few havest in trial. The trial court had refused his bail applications a number of times, citing the strict provisions of Section 43D (5) of UAPA, which prohibits the grant of bail if there are reasonable grounds for believing the accusation is prima facie true. In 2020 the Kerala High Court granted bail to Najeeb on the ground that his increasing incarceration without the possibility of a timely trial infringed his fundamental right under Article 21. Displeased with the High Court’s ruling, the Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues
- Whether excessive imprisonment for an undertrial, violate Article 21?
Article 21 provided the right to life and personal liberty, which included the right to a speedy trial (Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar 1979).
The court had to decide whether K.A. Najeeb’s continued detention where no trial was foreseeable infringed his fundamental right.
- Whether the provisions of Section 43D (5) of the UAPA override fundamental rights?
Section 43D (5) indicates that bail is not even possible if the allegations are prima facie established.
The court had to consider whether bail provisions such as this allow the Article 21 protections to personal liberty to be violated.
- Whether Courts should equitably balance national security against personal freedom?
The States argued strict rules are needed in terrorism-related offences for public security.
The accused argued that liberty is sacred in a democracy and that detention before conviction is punishment.
Arguments
Appellant (Union of India):
- The Union of India argued the charges which Najeeb was accused of were serious as they were related to terrorism, and that there would be a serious threat to public safety if he was released on bail.
- The argument was made that since the state’s assertions were related to national security matters, Section 43D (5) of UAPA creates a legal bar to granting bail if the state prima facie established the allegations against Najeeb are true. The High Court instructed it was wrong to consider this section.
- The appellant also noted that if Najeeb were released, intimidation of witnesses, tampering with evidence, and re-engaging in extremist activities could easily occur.
Respondent (K.A. Najeeb):
- Counsel for the lower court argued on his behalf that Najeeb has been detained just over five years without a trial, clearly in violation of his right to a speedy trial, a subset of the right to life and personal liberty in article 21.
- It was noted that the trial was proceeding at a very slow pace, to examine hundreds of witnesses especially when it was not likely that the trial would finish anytime soon.
- The respondent argued that Article 21 is a foundational right that can never be over ruled by any statute, including Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the Union of India, in a reasoned judgement, and upheld the bail order of K.A. Najeeb from the Kerala High Court. The relevant findings of the court were:
- The Right to a Speedy Trial is recognised as a Fundamental Right. The Court held that the right to a speedy trial was a fundamental right as encapsulated in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court observed that keeping an undertrial – prisoner in continued custody without trial and for an indefinite period amount to a violation of the right to a speedy trial of an accused and hence unconstitutional.
- The Powers of Constitutional Courts. The Court observed that statutory fetters and restrictions in relation to bail under Section 43D (5) UAPA do not oust the powers of constitutional courts, to exercise jurisdiction over an application for bail, on the infringement of fundamental rights. It further clarified that statutory fetters and restrictions on bail only place a restriction on bail, and not on grant of relief before the constitutional courts, based on one or more infringements of constitutional rights.
- Balancing Between National Security and Individual Liberty. While recognizing that issues of national security are important and that terrorism might compel strong laws, the Court said that these cannot justify an individual being held in custody indefinitely. It held that there needs to be a balance of interest of state security and the right of an individual to liberty.
Conclusion
The Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb judgment is an important judicial interpretation at the intersection of fundamental rights and anti-terrorism laws in India. The Court stated that the State could not hold offenders on the basis of deferred or indefinite detention, no matter how serious the allegations of terrorism were against him. The judgment has been generally well-received as a strong endorsement of individual liberties and a check on the misuse of draconian laws in the form of the Unlawful Activities (Preventive) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The Constitution reminds us that a right to speedy trial is not simply avoiding dragging or undelayed time, but it is part of a justice system that is just and fair.
Reference(S):
- Indian kanoon https://indiankanoon.org/doc/18346623/
- The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 21.
- The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
