 |
|
The Supreme Court of India has delivered a significant ruling regarding the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), clarifying the mandatory nature of the 14-day timeline for granting sanctions under the Act. This judgment addresses conflicting interpretations by various High Courts and sets a new standard for handling UAPA sanctions, emphasizing the importance of efficiency and accountability in national security matters. The Court's decision underscores the critical nature of timely decision-making in such cases, recognizing that any delay could undermine the very purpose of the anti-terrorism law.
The UAPA, a stringent law aimed at combating terrorism and unlawful activities, requires prior government sanction for the prosecution of individuals accused of such offenses. This sanction process involves a two-step timeline: an independent authority reviews the evidence and makes a recommendation to the government within seven working days, followed by a further seven working days for the government to decide whether to grant or deny the sanction. While the 2008 rules under the UAPA explicitly use the word “shall” in outlining these timelines, implying a mandatory requirement, various High Courts had differing interpretations regarding their enforceability, with some viewing them as merely directory and allowing for delays.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, has unequivocally declared that the 14-day timeline for granting UAPA sanctions is mandatory and not discretionary. This means that both the central and state governments are obligated to act swiftly and efficiently in national security matters related to the UAPA. The judgment reinforces the principle that adherence to the statutory timelines is essential for upholding the procedural rights of the accused. The Court stressed that non-compliance with these timelines not only violates procedural requirements but also infringes upon the accused's fundamental rights. Timelines serve as vital checks and balances, preventing the unchecked exercise of power, a crucial safeguard in a democratic society.
The Court's decision also addresses the validity of challenging the sanction process. It rules that any challenge to the validity of a sanction should be raised at the earliest possible stage, before the trial court. While acknowledging the right to challenge, the Court emphasizes the need to justify any belated challenges to prevent misuse and delay tactics. This ruling aims to ensure a smooth and efficient legal process while protecting the accused's rights.
The Supreme Court's judgment in this case carries significant implications for the implementation of the UAPA. It clarifies the mandatory nature of the sanctioning process and establishes strict timelines for government action. This will likely lead to increased scrutiny of the sanction process and could potentially impact the outcome of cases involving the UAPA. The decision also emphasizes the need for the government to act swiftly and decisively in matters of national security, balancing the need for swift action with the protection of individual rights.
Source: 14-day timeline to give sanction under UAPA is mandatory, not discretionary: SC