Says Prolonged Incarceration Without Conclusion of Trial Violates Article 21; Reaffirms Right to Speedy Justice
New Delhi, July 30 :
In a significant judgment reaffirming the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial, the Supreme Court of India on Thursday granted bail to two accused booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), who had remained in judicial custody for nearly 12 years without the trial reaching its conclusion.
A Bench of the apex court observed that keeping the accused behind bars for such an extended period, with no immediate possibility of the trial concluding, raised serious concerns under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
The Court held that while allegations under anti-terror laws are undoubtedly serious, constitutional safeguards cannot be ignored merely because the offences are grave. It emphasized that an accused cannot be subjected to indefinite incarceration when the trial itself is progressing at an unreasonably slow pace.
The Bench underlined that the right to a speedy trial is an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty and that prolonged detention without substantial progress in criminal proceedings would amount to a violation of fundamental rights.
Referring to its landmark ruling in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, the Supreme Court reiterated that the stringent restrictions on granting bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA do not override constitutional protections where prolonged incarceration and delay in trial infringe Article 21.
The Court clarified that the relief was granted solely on account of the extraordinary delay in the completion of the trial and the lengthy period already spent in custody. It made it clear that no opinion had been expressed on the merits of the allegations and that the criminal proceedings against the accused would continue in accordance with law.
The judgment is being widely viewed as an important reaffirmation of the judiciary’s role in safeguarding personal liberty, even in cases involving stringent special laws such as the UAPA. It reinforces the principle that constitutional courts have the authority to grant bail where prolonged incarceration effectively results in denial of a fair and speedy trial, ensuring that fundamental rights remain protected irrespective of the nature of the charges. (KNC)