In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol, emphasized that the validity of sanctions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) must be challenged at the earliest stage of proceedings. The Court also held that the statutory timelines for sanction approval under the UAPA are mandatory, stressing the importance of adherence to procedural safeguards. This ruling came in the case titled Fuleshwar Gope vs. Union of India & Ors. (Criminal Appeal arising from SLP(Crl.) No.4866 of 2023).
Background of the Case:
The appellant, Fuleshwar Gope, was implicated in a case connected to the People’s Liberation Front of India (PLFI), a banned extremist group. Gope, designated as Accused No.17 (A-17), was alleged to have conspired with Dinesh Gope (A-6), the leader of PLFI, and other associates to launder extorted money through a company named M/s Shiv Shakti Samridhi Infra Pvt. Ltd. (A-20). The case originated with FIR No.67/2016 at Bero, Jharkhand, leading to the invocation of UAPA, Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections, and charges under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908.
Initially, the case was investigated by the local police, but it was later transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) following a suo-motu order by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). The appellant, Fuleshwar Gope, was arrested in 2020 and subsequently challenged the sanction for his prosecution, arguing that procedural timelines and the independent review process had not been followed.
Legal Issues Involved:
The Supreme Court focused on the following key legal questions:
1. Challenge to Sanction Validity: Whether the validity of the sanction under UAPA can be challenged at any stage of the legal proceedings, or whether it must be done at an earlier stage.
2. Mandatory Timelines Under UAPA: Whether the statutory timelines prescribed under Section 45(2) of UAPA and Rules 3 and 4 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (Recommendation & Sanction of Prosecution) Rules, 2008 are mandatory or merely directory.
3. Application of Mind and Independent Review: Whether the process of granting sanction for prosecution was done with proper application of mind and independent review by the sanctioning authorities.
Court’s Observations:
1. Challenge to Sanction Validity:
The Court ruled that challenges to the validity of sanctions must be raised at the earliest possible stage of the proceedings, typically before the trial or at the stage of cognizance. The Court emphasized that delaying such challenges could hamper the proceedings and may prejudice the legal process. “Sanction is the bedrock upon which a prosecution under UAPA rests, and any question concerning its validity must be addressed promptly,” the Court noted.
2. Mandatory Nature of Timelines:
The Court made it clear that the timelines prescribed under Section 45(2) of UAPA and Rules 3 and 4 of the 2008 Rules are mandatory and not merely advisory. The rules stipulate that the sanctioning authority and the reviewing authority must act within a defined period—seven days for reviewing evidence and seven days for granting sanction. The Court observed that these timelines are critical to ensuring a fair and efficient prosecution under UAPA, which deals with serious offences related to terrorism and national security. “Deviation from these statutory timelines would vitiate the proceedings and undermine the sanctity of the law,” the Court asserted.
3. Application of Mind and Independent Review:
The Supreme Court underlined the importance of independent review and application of mind by the sanctioning authority. The Court rejected the argument that the swift approval of sanctions indicated a lack of application of mind. “The process may be expeditious, but it must not be mechanical,” the bench remarked, adding that both the reviewing and sanctioning authorities need to carefully examine the material placed before them to ensure a just prosecution.
Decision:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by Fuleshwar Gope, holding that the sanction for his prosecution under UAPA was valid and in compliance with statutory requirements. The Court reiterated that the procedural timelines must be strictly followed, and challenges to sanction validity should be raised at the earliest stage.
The case title is Fuleshwar Gope vs. Union of India & Ors., and the case number is SLP(Crl.) No.4866 of 2023
