1. No Blanket Ban on Witness Statements Under UAPA (May 2025)
Key Ruling:
-
The Supreme Court held that courts cannot issue blanket orders to block the disclosure of witness statements in UAPA cases.
-
Protection for witnesses (such as hiding identities or in-camera hearings) can only be imposed after a case-by-case assessment showing a real threat to each witness’s life or safety.
-
The accused has a right to see witness statements recorded by the police during investigation.
-
The Court emphasized that Section 44(2) of UAPA must be applied individually, and courts must provide brief reasons for any protective measures.
-
General applications by the prosecution for all witnesses are not allowed; specific details for each witness must be provided.
-
The decision reinforces the right to a fair trial, including the right to cross-examine witnesses.
2. Bail Under UAPA: Harpreet Singh Talwar @ Kabir Talwar vs. State of Gujarat & NIA (May 2025)
Key Points:
-
The appellant was denied regular bail in a case involving alleged narcotics smuggling linked to UAPA and NDPS Act charges.
-
The Court reiterated that Section 43D(5) of UAPA imposes a high threshold for bail, but this can yield to Article 21 (right to life and liberty) in cases of inordinate trial delay or punitive incarceration.
-
In this case, the Court found that the prima facie threshold for continued custody was met due to:
-
The appellant’s alleged role in facilitating import of narcotics through shell companies.
-
Ongoing risk of witness tampering, with some witnesses untraceable or deceased.
-
The scale and sophistication of the alleged operation, involving international syndicates.
-
-
The Court allowed the appellant to renew his bail plea after six months or upon substantial progress in the trial.
-
The judgment clarified that, at this stage, there was no compelling evidence to link the appellant to terror financing, but the trial must proceed to establish facts.
3. Summary Table: Key Principles from Recent Judgments
| Principle/Issue | Supreme Court Ruling (2025) |
|---|---|
| Blanket ban on witness statements | Not allowed; must be based on individual threat assessment |
| Right to see witness statements | Accused has this right unless specific threat is established |
| Bail under UAPA (Section 43D(5)) | High threshold; can be relaxed for prolonged incarceration or trial delays |
| Prima facie case for bail | Must be based on credible material, not mere allegations |
| Protection of fair trial rights | Courts must balance witness protection with accused’s right to defense and cross-examination |
-
The Supreme Court is insisting on strict adherence to procedural safeguards under UAPA, especially regarding witness protection and the rights of the accused.
-
Bail under UAPA remains difficult, but the Court has signaled that prolonged pre-trial detention without substantial progress may justify bail, in line with constitutional rights.
-
The Court is cautious about extending UAPA’s terror financing provisions without clear and compelling evidence.
Harpreet Singh Talwar @ Kabir Talwar vs. State of Gujarat & NIA
Key Holdings:
-
Reaffirmed that under Section 43D(5) of UAPA, courts are not required to meticulously examine the admissibility and reliability of evidence at the bail stage
-
Special Courts can consider the magnitude of the offense, transnational nature of operations, and possibility of influencing investigation while denying bail
-
Noted the prima facie case of conspiracy under both NDPS Act and UAPA in transnational smuggling operations
2024 Landmark Judgments
4. Athar Parwez v. Union of India (2024)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1006
Key Principles Established:
Bail Assessment Framework:
-
Courts must assess whether accusations are prima facie true based on FIR, charge sheet, and case diary
-
Assessment should consider totality of evidence on broad probabilities
-
If accusations are not prima facie substantiated, bail may be granted
Constitutional Balancing:
-
Inordinate delays in trial and long periods of incarceration without conviction violate Article 21
-
Courts must harmonize statutory provisions with constitutional guarantees
-
While legislative intent must initially be adhered to, prolonged detention without trial mandates prioritization of constitutional rights over statutory bars
Specific Findings:
-
Mere participation in meetings and protests organized by banned organizations doesn't establish prima facie involvement in terrorist activities
-
Protected witnesses' statements and recovered materials lacking direct incriminating evidence insufficient for UAPA charges
-
Over two years in custody without trial commencement with 40 accused and 354 witnesses constituted unreasonable delay
Relief Granted:
-
High Court's denial of bail was set aside
-
Emphasized that denying bail in deserving cases contravenes Article 21
-
Directed release on appropriate terms within seven days
5. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir v. Peerzada Shah Fahad (2024)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 8025
Key Holdings:
Doctrinal Clarification:
-
Declared as bad in law the High Court judgment that applied "clear and present danger" test for UAPA bail
-
High Court's reliance on Schenck v. United States was per incuriam in light of Indian precedents
Legal Precedent:
-
Reaffirmed that Indian courts have rejected the application of "clear and present danger" doctrine following:
-
Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1961 SC 884)
-
State of Madras v. V.G. Row (1952)
-
Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam (2023)
-
Substantive Ruling:
-
"Lowering of India's global reputation" cannot be held to be terrorist act within meaning of Section 15 of UAPA
-
High Court judgment should not be cited as precedent
-
However, did not interfere with bail granted to journalist Fahad Shah
Ongoing Constitutional Challenges (2025)
6.Sajal Awasthi v. Union of India
Constitutional Issues Raised:
Individual Designation Power:
-
Whether 2019 amendment allowing individual designation as terrorist violates due process
-
Challenge to Section 35 giving Central Government unilateral power to categorize individuals as terrorists
Fundamental Rights Violations:
-
Whether amendment fetters right to dissent under Article 19(1)(a)
-
Whether executive power without judicial oversight violates rule of law and natural justice
-
Whether amendment is manifestly arbitrary violating Articles 14 and 21
Key Arguments:
-
Power to categorize someone as terrorist without trial goes against criminal jurisprudence principles
-
Unilateral executive power violates fundamental right to reputation
-
Amendment gives arbitrary powers to executive without due process safeguards
The current status of the case Sajal Awasthi v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 1076/2019) is as follows:
-
The Supreme Court has declined to continue hearing the main constitutional challenges to the 2019 amendments of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and has directed that High Courts across India may proceed with the writ petitions challenging these provisions.
-
The most recent Supreme Court order (dated 4 February 2025), issued by a bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, clarified that High Courts in Delhi, Gauhati, Bombay, Jharkhand, and Kerala (where similar challenges are pending) are permitted to hear and decide these cases on their merits.
-
The Supreme Court noted the practical difficulties of addressing such wide-ranging constitutional issues at its level and emphasized the High Courts' capacity to handle these important matters.
-
The main issues in the Sajal Awasthi petition include challenges to Sections 35 and 36 of the UAPA, which allow the government to designate individuals as terrorists without a judicial process. The petitioners argue this violates fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, including the right to equality, free speech, and life/reputation.
-
The Supreme Court's order means the case is not being decided at the Supreme Court for now, but instead, the High Courts are empowered to deliver judgments on the constitutional validity of the UAPA amendments.
In summary:The Supreme Court has deferred to the High Courts to hear and decide the constitutional challenges to the 2019 UAPA amendments raised in Sajal Awasthi v. Union of India. The case remains pending, and no final judgment on the merits has been delivered by the Supreme Court. The next steps will depend on proceedings and decisions in the relevant High Courts.-
Emerging Trends from Recent Judgments
Bail Jurisprudence Evolution
Recent Supreme Court decisions show a nuanced approach to UAPA bail:
-
Constitutional rights increasingly balanced against statutory restrictions
-
Prolonged detention without trial recognized as violation of Article 21
-
Prima facie assessment must be based on concrete evidence, not mere allegations
Judicial Oversight Enhancement
Courts are demonstrating increased scrutiny of:
-
Quality of evidence at bail stage
-
Procedural compliance by investigating agencies
-
Reasonable timelines for trial completion
Doctrinal Clarifications
Recent judgments have rejected foreign legal doctrines like "clear and present danger" test, emphasizing Indian constitutional framework and established precedents.
Implications for Future UAPA Cases
Bail Applications
-
Prolonged detention without trial will likely receive greater judicial scrutiny
-
Quality of evidence rather than mere accusations will be emphasized
-
Constitutional rights will be balanced against security concerns
Prosecutorial Standards
Recent judgments suggest courts will demand higher standards of evidence and procedural compliance from investigating agencies, moving away from broad interpretations that have characterized UAPA enforcement.
These recent Supreme Court judgments indicate a judicial recalibration of UAPA implementation, emphasizing constitutional safeguards while maintaining the law's anti-terrorism objectives.
No comments:
Post a Comment