In a critical judgment emphasizing constitutional rights over prolonged detention, the Supreme Court of India granted bail to Athar Parwez, an undertrial accused under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967. The Court highlighted the principle that extended incarceration without trial contravenes Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and liberty. The decision, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, reiterates the judiciary’s responsibility to balance statutory provisions with fundamental rights.
This judgment not only raises questions about the handling of UAPA cases but also reaffirms the courts’ duty to ensure procedural fairness and constitutional protections for the accused.
Background of the Case
Athar Parwez was arrested on July 12, 2022, following a police raid on Ahmad Palace, Phulwari Sharif, Patna. The raid, conducted ahead of the Prime Minister’s visit to Patna, alleged that Parwez and associates, linked to the now-banned Popular Front of India (PFI), were plotting to disrupt public peace. Authorities seized a document titled “India 2047: Towards Rule of Islam in India”, which was cited as evidence of plans to destabilize India’s sovereignty and incite communal discord.
Parwez was charged under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 121 (waging war against the state) and 153A (promoting enmity between groups), as well as under Sections 13, 17, 18, and 20 of the UAPA. Despite the chargesheet being filed on January 7, 2023, formal charges are yet to be framed, and Parwez has been in custody for over two years.
Legal Issues
The case brought to the fore several legal and constitutional issues:
1. Evidentiary Doubts: The defense contended that the incriminating document was recovered from a part of the building not rented by Parwez, raising questions about the veracity of the evidence.
2. Prolonged Pretrial Detention: Parwez had been in custody for over 28 months, with the trial unlikely to conclude soon. His counsel argued this violated Article 21’s guarantee of a speedy trial.
3. PFI’s Status: The PFI was not declared a terrorist organization at the time of the alleged offense, a fact emphasized by the defense.
Court Proceedings and Observations
Senior Advocate Dr. Aditya Sondhi represented Parwez, asserting that the evidence against his client was tenuous and fabricated. He pointed to procedural discrepancies, such as the location of the document’s recovery and the lack of direct evidence linking Parwez to violent or subversive activities. The defense also highlighted that other co-accused, including the building’s owner, Jalaluddin Khan, had been granted bail on similar grounds.
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Union of India, argued that Parwez had actively participated in organizing meetings promoting radical ideologies and conspiring to disrupt social harmony. The prosecution also relied on statements from protected witnesses and electronic evidence linking Parwez to the alleged activities.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court relied on key precedents, including National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali and Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb. The Court reiterated that while UAPA imposes stringent conditions for bail, these cannot override constitutional safeguards, particularly in cases of prolonged detention.
Key Observations
Justice Masih noted, “The seriousness of the allegations cannot overshadow the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21. Long incarceration without trial cannot be justified, especially when the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future.”
The Court also pointed out discrepancies in the chargesheet, stating that the prosecution had failed to present sufficient prima facie evidence to justify continued detention under UAPA provisions.
The Judgment
The Supreme Court set aside the Patna High Court’s earlier denial of bail, directing the Special Court to release Parwez on bail within seven days. It clarified that the observations in the judgment were limited to the bail application and would not prejudice the trial.
