14-day deadline to be observed for UAPA sanctions: Supreme Court warns against delays | Latest news from India

The Supreme Court settled conflicting interpretations by various higher courts and ordered governments to adhere to the timetable or face serious legal consequences, including the dismissal of criminal proceedings for delay.

The verdict by the bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol was a stark reminder to the executive that there is no room for complacency in dealing with national security issues. The bench stressed the importance of timely decisions and observed, “The executive is expected to act with speed and expeditiousness in the interest of safeguarding national security.”

ALSO READ – Eknath Shinde on Badlapur sexual assault case: Accused shot dead by police: ‘Self-defense’

The ruling stressed that any delay in the sanctions process could undermine the very purpose of the Anti-Terrorism Law, which aims to combat terrorism and illegal activities efficiently and responsibly. However, the court clarified that its ruling on strict adherence to the timeline does not affect previous decisions and that the ruling should apply going forward.

It was also stressed that failure to comply with statutory time limits not only violates procedural rules but also infringes on the rights of the accused. “Time limits serve as essential aspects of checks and balances in such cases and are, of course, of undeniable importance. Without such restrictions, power will pass into the realm of the unbridled, which is contrary to a democratic society,” the court added.

It states: “Since the UAPA is a criminal law, it has to be interpreted strictly. Time limits imposed by law are a way of keeping a check on the executive power, which is necessary to protect the rights of accused persons.”

The judgment sets a new standard for the handling of sanctions under UAPA and makes it clear that delays are unacceptable and violate the procedural rights of the accused. By reaffirming the binding nature of the timelines, the judgment has not only resolved conflicting judicial interpretations but also underscored the importance of accountability and efficiency in national security matters.

While interpreting the UAPA Rules, 2008, the Court pointed out that Rules 3 and 4 use the word ‘shall’ to specify a specific time period for making a recommendation and issuing a sanction, which implies a clear intention of the legislature to complete the sanction process within the stipulated time.

ALSO READ – ‘The success of humanity lies in collective strength’: PM Modi at ‘Summit of the Future’

Under the UAPA, prior approval from the government is required for prosecution of persons accused of terrorism. This approval process involves a two-stage timeline. First, an independent agency must examine the evidence collected by investigators and submit a recommendation to the government within seven working days. The government then has another seven working days to decide whether to grant or deny approval based on the agency’s recommendation.

However, there was confusion in various High Courts as to whether these time limits were merely indicative – meaning that delays did not necessarily invalidate the proceedings – or whether they were binding and had to be strictly adhered to. The Bombay and Jharkhand High Courts considered the time limits to be indicative.

The top court, hearing a case from Jharkhand, put an end to the uncertainty and ruled that the time limits were indeed binding and non-negotiable. The 14-day time limit was not just a procedural formality, the court ruled, adding that it served as a safeguard to ensure that decisions were taken with due care and without undue delay.

“The legislator’s intention is clear. Rules issued pursuant to statutory powers prescribe both a mandate and a deadline. These must be followed… The procedures in the form of sanctions provided for in such laws must be strictly followed, more in letter than in spirit. Even the slightest deviation from the written word can cast doubt on the procedures resulting from them,” said the ruling written by Judge Karol.

The judgment states that any failure to comply with the prescribed time limits may lead to the termination of criminal proceedings, thereby placing a significant obligation on the authorities and governments to act within the specified time limit.

The court stressed that timelines are crucial to prevent abuse of power and ensure a fair assessment of evidence before prosecution begins. “The one-week period granted to the two agencies is intended to enable them to evaluate independently… It does not serve the purpose of the investigation itself… There must be certain limits within which administrative agencies of the government can exercise their powers,” it said.

ALSO READ – ‘Avoid stubble burning’: PM’s Principal Secretary PK Mishra at meeting on pollution in Delhi and National Capital Region

The ruling also said that the validity of the sanction should be challenged as early as possible before the court. “If such a challenge is raised in an appeal, the person raising the challenge must set out the reasons why he is doing so at a belated stage. Such reasons must be independently examined to ensure that the right of challenge is not abused to delay or prolong the proceedings,” the ruling said.

The court was deciding an appeal by Fuleshwar Gope, a resident of Gumla district in Jharkhand, who was arrested in July 2020 in a terror financing case related to the People’s Liberation Front of India – a banned Maoist organisation. He challenged the validity of the sanction order, citing non-compliance with the 14-day time limit. He also argued that there was no independent verification as both the recommending and granting authorities took only one day each to grant the sanction order. However, the court dismissed his appeal, observing that Gope was arrested later in the course of investigation. The court also found no merit in the plea that the sanction order was invalid just because the two authorities took one day each to decide the case. “The mere fact that the period of time required for this was comparatively short or that other orders were even formulated in a similar way cannot call into question the credibility of the sanction decision,” it ruled.