In a recent pronouncement, the Supreme Court delved into the intricate realms of bail rights for individuals entangled under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967 (UAPA). The case of Shoma Sen brought forth a crucial observation, echoing the sentiments of judicial precedence set in motion by the landmark Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb case.
The saga began with the K.A. Najeeb ruling, where a trio of eminent judges, comprising Justices NV Ramana, Surya Kant, and Aniruddha Bose, extended a lifeline to UAPA-accused individuals. Despite the statutory hurdles posed by Section 43D (5) of UAPA, the court, in a bid to uphold the sanctity of Article 21 of the Constitution, acknowledged the constitutional courts’ authority to grant bail.
However, a ripple of contention surfaced with the Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab judgment. Herein, the Division bench, led by Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar, nuanced the discourse by emphasizing that mere trial delay shouldn’t be a blanket justification for bail in grave offenses. Distinguishing the Najeeb case, the bench underscored the contextual disparities, leading to the rejection of Gurwinder Singh’s bail plea.
Fast forward to the Shoma Sen episode, where the Supreme Court elucidated its stance, elucidating that while Gurwinder Singh’s case may differ from Najeeb’s, it wouldn’t upheave the legal footing established by the latter. Justices Aniruddha Bose and Augustine George Masih, in a comprehensive exposition spanning fifty pages, reiterated the significance of bail rights anchored in Article 21, rebuffing the notion that bail is not a fundamental right.
Despite the National Investigative Authority’s opposition spearheaded by ASG KM Natraj, the court remained steadfast in its stance, accentuating the delicate balance between pre-conviction detention for evidence gathering and the individual’s right to liberty. Emphasizing proportionality, the court delineated the overarching principles governing pre-trial detention, a pivotal aspect in the legal landscape.
The judgment encapsulated a pivotal juncture in legal discourse, heralding a nuanced perspective on bail rights, ensconced within the constitutional ethos. As the wheels of justice continue to turn, this ruling stands as a beacon, navigating the intricate interplay between individual rights and state imperatives.
