SUPREME COURT REITERATES THAT PROLONGED IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT TRIAL VIOLATES ARTICLE 21 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION, WHICH ENSURES THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL

A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih passed a Judgement dated 17-12-2024 in the matter of Athar Parwez vs. Union of India, Criminal Appeal No. 5387 of 2024 and established that strict statutory provisions cannot supersede fundamental rights, particularly in cases with insufficient prima facie evidence and prolonged detention without trial.

FACTS:

The Appellant, Athar Parwez, was arrested on 12.07.2022, based on allegations of being an active member of the Popular Front of India (PFI). The allegations claimed that the Appellant, along with others, was involved in a conspiracy to disrupt public order during the Prime Minister’s visit to Patna.

Further, FIR No. 827 of 2022 was registered at Phulwari Sharif Police Station under sections 120, 120-B, 121, 121-A, 153-A, 153-B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The charges included conspiracy, promoting enmity, and other activities allegedly aimed at causing disruption and disaffection against the State.

During a raid conducted on 11.07.2022, a document titled “India 2047: Towards Rule of Islam in India, Internal Document Not for Circulation” was allegedly recovered. The prosecution claimed that the document and other materials demonstrated the Appellant’s involvement in activities designed to disrupt national integrity and promote Islamic rule.

The Government of India directed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to take over the investigation on 22.07.2022. The NIA re-registered the case under sections of the IPC and additional sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). A chargesheet was filed on 07.01. 2023.

The Appellant was accused of organizing and hosting meetings in a rented property at Ahmad Palace, where plans were allegedly discussed to further the PFI’s agenda. The prosecution claimed that activities included training members and promoting communal unrest. It was also alleged that the Appellant participated in protests and demonstrations, raising provocative slogans.

The Appellant argued that the seized materials were not recovered from the premises under his control, as his rent agreement pertained only to the first floor of Ahmad Palace, while the documents were allegedly recovered from the second floor. Additionally, at the time of the alleged activities, the PFI was a legally recognized organization and had not been banned.

The Appellant’s bail applications were rejected by the lower courts, citing the severity of the charges. However, similar allegations against co-accused individuals resulted in their release on bail by the Supreme Court.

The Appellant has been in custody for over two years, and no charges have been framed yet. The prosecution has cited 354 witnesses and included 40 accused in the case, making a timely trial unlikely.

The Appellant invoked Article 21 of the Constitution, arguing that prolonged detention without trial violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial. It was contended that continued incarceration, without substantial evidence and in the absence of trial progression, is unconstitutional.

HIGH COURT:

The High Court of Patna emphasized the gravity of the allegations against the Appellant, Athar Parwez, which involved accusations of conspiracy to disrupt public order, promoting communal disharmony, and activities aimed at undermining national sovereignty.

The High Court noted the seizure of a document titled “India 2047: Towards Rule of Islam in India, Internal Document Not for Circulation,” during the raid at Ahmad Palace. It accepted the prosecution’s claim that the contents of the document pointed towards a conspiracy to create unrest and promote Islamic rule.

The Court observed that the Appellant allegedly played a significant role in organizing and hosting meetings for members of the Popular Front of India (PFI) in a rented property. It was claimed that these meetings were aimed at furthering PFI’s agenda, including training members and planning disruptive activities.

The Appellant’s involvement in protests, particularly one on 09.06.2022, was cited as evidence of his active role in promoting communal tension. The High Court observed that provocative slogans were raised during these protests, allegedly at the Appellant’s instigation.

While the High Court acknowledged that the PFI was not a banned organization at the time of the Appellant’s arrest, it held that this did not absolve him of the charges related to promoting enmity and conspiracy.

Based on the seriousness of the charges, the High Court concluded that releasing the Appellant on bail would not be appropriate. It highlighted the potential threat to public order and national security as reasons for rejecting the bail application.

The High Court drew a distinction between the Appellant and co-accused Jalaluddin Khan (the owner of the rented property), who was granted bail by the Supreme Court. It reasoned that the Appellant had a more active role in organizing meetings and storing materials allegedly used for unlawful activities.

The Court acknowledged the early stage of the trial but did not find this to be a compelling ground to grant bail, considering the weight of the evidence presented by the prosecution.

ISSUES:

The evidence presented by the prosecution, including the seized materials and witness statements.

The stage of the trial and the likelihood of its timely conclusion, considering the large number of accused and witnesses.

The applicability of the statutory provisions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and their balance with the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21.

The precedents involving co-accused in similar circumstances, including those granted bail by the Supreme Court.

SUPREME COURT:

The Supreme Court emphasized that prolonged incarceration without trial constitutes a violation of the fundamental right to a speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court observed that the Appellant had been in custody for over two years and four months, with no charges framed and the trial unlikely to conclude soon.

While acknowledging the seriousness of the charges, the Court reiterated that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The gravity of allegations alone cannot justify indefinite detention without trial.

The Court noted discrepancies in the prosecution’s case, particularly concerning the seizure of documents. The allegedly incriminating materials were stated to have been recovered from the second floor of the premises, while the Appellant was a tenant of the first floor, as evidenced by the rent deed. This cast doubt on the reliability of the evidence against the Appellant.

The Court observed that at the time of the Appellant’s arrest, the Popular Front of India (PFI) was not a banned organization under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. While the PFI was later banned, this fact could not retroactively criminalize the Appellant’s alleged association with it.

The Court highlighted that the evidence against the Appellant primarily involved participation in meetings and protests, with no direct evidence of his involvement in terrorist activities or acts of violence. The protected witnesses’ statements did not indicate any specific incriminating actions by the Appellant.

The Court referenced its earlier decision to grant bail to co-accused Jalaluddin Khan, who faced similar allegations but was the owner of the premises. It noted that the evidence and allegations against the Appellant were comparable to those against the co-accused.

The Court acknowledged the statutory restrictions under Section 43-D (5) of the UAPA but stressed that these cannot override constitutional rights. It held that the period of incarceration and the unlikelihood of a timely trial warranted invoking constitutional protections.

 

CONCLUSION

The Court concluded that the Appellant could not be indefinitely detained without Trial. It directed the release of the Appellant on bail, subject to appropriate terms and conditions set by the Special Court, while clarifying that the observations made were limited to the Bail Application and would not influence the Trial’s outcome.

 

Sakshi Raghuvanshi

Senior Legal Associate

The Indian Lawyer