Context of the Ruling
The Supreme Court of India recently declared that the 14-day timeline for granting sanction to prosecute under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, is mandatory and binding on authorities. This decision aims to curb indefinite delays in prosecuting terrorism-related cases while ensuring accountability in the sanctioning process.
UAPA: An Overview
- Objective: Combat unlawful activities, terrorism, and threats to national integrity.
- Key Features:
- Broad Definition of Terrorism: Includes acts threatening India’s sovereignty, causing terror, or destabilizing the state.
- Stringent Bail Provisions: Bail rarely granted unless the court finds prima facie no offense (Section 43D(5)).
- Extended Detention Periods: Accused can be detained for up to 180 days without a chargesheet (vs. 90 days under ordinary law).
Prosecution Process Under UAPA
Section 45 of UAPA:
- Sanction Requirement: No court can take cognizance of UAPA offenses without prior sanction from the central or state government.
- Procedure:
- Evidence Review: An independent authority (e.g., Deputy Superintendent of Police or higher) must scrutinize evidence within 7 days of arrest.
- Sanction Decision: The government must decide on prosecution sanction within the next 7 days.
- Total Timeline: 14 days from arrest to sanction.
Significance of the Supreme Court’s Ruling
- Prevents Indefinite Delays:
- Prior to this ruling, sanction delays often led to prolonged incarceration without trial, violating Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty).
- Example: Activists like Stan Swamy spent years in jail awaiting trial.
- Accountability of Authorities:
- Mandates strict adherence to timelines, reducing scope for bureaucratic lethargy or mala fide intent.
- Balances Security & Liberty:
- Ensures prompt decisions while retaining UAPA’s stringent anti-terror framework.
- Judicial Precedent:
- Follows the SC’s 2022 judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union of India, which upheld UAPA’s constitutionality but stressed procedural fairness.
Challenges in Implementation
- Operational Hurdles:
- Authorities may struggle to review complex cases (e.g., cross-border terrorism) within 7 days.
- Risk of Rubber-Stamping:
- Pressure to meet deadlines could lead to hasty, non-application of mind in sanctioning.
- State Capacity:
- Many states lack specialized personnel to scrutinize UAPA cases swiftly.
- Impact on Accused:
- Even with timely sanctions, UAPA’s low conviction rate (3% in 2021, NCRB) raises concerns about misuse.
Global Comparisons
- USA (Patriot Act): Requires judicial approval for surveillance but allows indefinite detention of non-citizens labeled “enemy combatants.”
- UK (Terrorism Act, 2000): Permits 14-day detention without charge, subject to judicial review.
- India’s Stand: Stricter procedural safeguards than the USA but weaker than the UK’s judicial oversight.
Way Forward
- Specialized Sanction Committees:
- Create expert panels (ex-judges, prosecutors) to review UAPA cases within timelines.
- Training for Authorities:
- Build capacity to handle technical evidence (e.g., digital forensics) swiftly.
- Judicial Monitoring:
- High Courts should track sanction delays and impose penalties for non-compliance.
- Amend Section 45:
- Introduce exceptions for cases requiring extended investigation (e.g., international terror modules).
- Compensation for Delays:
- Mandate monetary relief for accused if sanctions are delayed beyond 14 days.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling marks a crucial step toward reconciling UAPA’s draconian provisions with constitutional safeguards. By enforcing the 14-day sanction timeline, it addresses systemic delays that have historically undermined the rights of the accused. However, effective implementation will require bolstering institutional capacity and ensuring authorities balance national security imperatives with individual liberties. As the Court noted, “Procedure is the skin of the law, and without it, the law bleeds.”
