The Supreme Court, in a significant ruling on Monday, emphasized the importance of strictly adhering to the timelines for prosecution sanctions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The court declared that without stringent adherence to these deadlines, the exercise of power could become “unbridled,” posing a threat to democratic principles.
A bench consisting of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol articulated the necessity of maintaining strict timelines as prescribed under Rules 3 and 4 of the UAPA Rules. These rules mandate a seven-day period for authorities to recommend prosecution based on the investigating officer’s findings, followed by an additional seven days for the government to grant the sanction for prosecution.
The justices noted, “There have to be certain limitations within which administrative authorities of the Government can exercise their powers. Without such limitations, power will enter the realm of the unbridled, which needless to state is antithetical to a democratic society.”
The verdict arose from an appeal by Fuleshwar Gope, alleged to be associated with the People’s Liberation Front of India (PLFI), a breakaway faction of CPI (Maoist) in Jharkhand. Gope challenged the Jharkhand High Court’s decision that dismissed his plea against the UAPA prosecution sanction granted for his case.
The Supreme Court’s judgment underscored that challenges to prosecution sanctions under the UAPA should ideally be presented at the earliest opportunity during trial proceedings. This ensures that any objections are addressed promptly, thereby preventing misuse of the legal challenge process to delay or obstruct justice.
The bench further explained that if a challenge to the prosecution sanction is raised at a belated stage, the court must carefully assess the reasons for the delay before considering the merits of the case. The court stressed that late challenges should not serve as impediments to trials or as means to evade conviction from otherwise valid prosecutions.
Moreover, the Supreme Court highlighted the critical nature of UAPA as a penal legislation, necessitating that its enforcement be strictly construed to safeguard the rights of the accused. It stated, “Timelines imposed by way of statutory Rules are a way to keep a check on executive power which is a necessary position to protect the rights of accused persons.”
In conclusion, the court affirmed the procedural sanctity of UAPA sanctions, maintaining that the legislative intent and statutory mandates must be followed meticulously to prevent any potential miscarriage of justice. The court refused to interfere with the high court’s order, allowing Gope to present his arguments regarding the application of mind for prosecution sanction during his trial.
