Independent Morning.
New Delhi:
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that the 14-day timeline for granting sanctions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) is mandatory, not discretionary. This makes it imperative for both the central and state governments to act swiftly in matters of national security. The Supreme Court said that its decision regarding strict adherence to the timeline will not affect any previous decision and it will remain applicable in future as well.
Settling conflicting interpretations of various High Courts, the Supreme Court made it mandatory for governments to adhere to the deadline or face severe legal consequences, including quashing of criminal proceedings, for delay.
A bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol sent a strong message to the government that there was no room for complacency in dealing with national security issues. Highlighting the critical nature of timely decision-making, the bench said: “The executive is expected to act with speed and promptness in furthering the ideal of preserving national security.”
The judgment emphasised that any delay in the ban process could undermine the very purpose of the anti-terrorism law, which is designed to combat terrorism and unlawful activities with efficiency and accountability. Of course, the court clarified that its decision regarding strict adherence to timelines will not affect any previous decision and will be applicable in the future.
It also underlined that non-adherence to statutory timelines not only violates procedural requirements but also infringes the rights of the accused. “Timelines in such cases serve as essential aspects of checks and balances and are, of course, undoubtedly important. Without such limitations, power would enter the realm of unbridled impunity, which is antithetical to a democratic society,” the court said.
“The UAPA being a penal law, it must be construed as stringent. Time limits imposed through statutory rules are a means of exercising a check on executive power, which is a necessary condition for protecting the rights of accused persons”, the court said.
This decision sets a new standard for how detentions under the UAPA are handled, making it clear that delays are unacceptable and violate the procedural rights of the accused. By reaffirming the mandatory nature of deadlines, the decision has not only resolved conflicting judicial interpretations but also reinforced the importance of accountability and efficiency in national security matters.
Interpreting the 2008 Rules under the UAPA, the Court pointed out that Rules 3 and 4 use the word “shall” in providing a specific time period for making recommendation and granting approval, which indicates a clear legislative intent to complete the approval process by the prescribed time.
Under the UAPA, prior permission from the government is required to prosecute individuals accused of terrorism. This approval process involves a two-stage timeline. First, an independent authority must review the evidence collected by investigators and make a recommendation to the government within seven working days. Second, the government has an additional seven working days to decide whether or not to grant approval based on the authority's recommendation.
However, there was disagreement among the high courts on whether these timelines were merely prescriptive – suggesting that a delay would not necessarily invalidate the process – or mandatory, requiring strict compliance. The high courts of Bombay and Jharkhand held the timelines to be prescriptive.
Ending the uncertainty, the apex court, while hearing a case from Jharkhand, said the deadline is indeed mandatory and non-negotiable. The bench said the 14-day period is not merely a procedural formality but serves as a safeguard to ensure that decisions are taken with due diligence and without any unnecessary delay.
The judgment, written by Justice Karol, said, “The legislative intent is clear. Rules made by virtue of statutory powers contain both mandate and time limit. These must be followed… The procedures for sanctions provided in such a law must be strictly followed, in letter and spirit. Even a slight deviation from the written words may cast doubt on the proceedings arising out of it.”
The judgment noted that any failure to adhere to the prescribed time limit may result in the quashing of criminal proceedings, thereby placing an important obligation on authorities and governments to take action within the prescribed period.
The bench emphasised that the timeline is important to prevent abuse of power and to ensure a fair assessment of evidence before proceeding with prosecution. “The one week's time given to the two officers enables them to independently make an assessment… it is not for the purpose of investigation… there must be certain limits within which the administrative officers of the government can exercise their powers,” the bench said.
The judgment also said that the validity of the sanction should be challenged before the trial court at the earliest available case. “If such a challenge is raised at the appellate stage, the person making the challenge will have to justify the reasons for bringing it belatedly. Such reasons will have to be independently considered to ensure that the right of challenge is not abused for the purpose of stalling or delaying the proceedings,” it said.
The court was passing judgement on an appeal filed by Phuleshwar Gop, a resident of Jharkhand's Gumla district, who was arrested in July 2020 in a terror funding case linked to banned Maoist outfit People's Liberation Front of India. He challenged the validity of the sanction order citing violation of the 14-day timeline, besides arguing that there was no independent review as both the recommending and approving authorities took only one day each to grant the sanction.
However, the bench dismissed his appeal and said Gop was arrested later while the investigation was still on. The court also did not find any merit in the argument that the sanction was bad just because the two officers took a day each to decide the matter. “Merely on the ground that the time taken was comparatively less or even that other orders were of similar nature, the validity of the sanction cannot be questioned,” it said.
Comments are closed.