The Supreme Court of India has reiterated that constitutional courts possess the authority to grant bail to accused individuals on the grounds of violation of the fundamental right to a speedy trial, even in cases governed by stringent special laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). This principle was established in a 2021 ruling authored by Justice Surya Kant, who is now the Chief Justice of India, on behalf of a three-judge bench.
Primacy of Constitutional Principles Over Statutory Conditions
In the 2021 judgment, the apex court emphasized that constitutional principles must take precedence over statutory restrictions. The court stated that once it becomes evident that a timely trial is not feasible and the accused has already endured a significant period of incarceration, courts are ordinarily obligated to release them on bail. This ruling came while granting bail to an alleged member of the Popular Front of India (PFI).
The court observed: "...the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43D (5) of UAPA per se does not oust the ability of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. Indeed, both the restrictions under a statute as well as the powers exercisable under constitutional jurisdiction can be well harmonised. Whereas at commencement of proceedings, courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would safeguard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43D (5) being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial."
Application in Subsequent Cases
In January, while rejecting bail pleas of student activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam but allowing the plea of five others, the Supreme Court referred to the Najeeb case but clarified that it does not establish a mechanical rule where mere passage of time becomes determinative in every case under a special statute. The court stated: "The same decision, however, does not indicate as laying down a mechanical rule under which the mere passage of time becomes determinative in every case arising under a special statute. The jurisprudence of this court does not support a construction whereby delay simpliciter eclipses a statutory regime enacted by Parliament to address offences of a special category."
Balancing Article 21 and Statutory Restrictions
The court further explained that the proper constitutional question is not whether Article 21 is superior to Section 43D (5), but how Article 21 should be applied when Parliament has expressly conditioned the grant of bail in relation to offences implicating national security. The court emphasized that the law does not contemplate an either-or approach nor an unstructured blending of statutory and constitutional considerations. Instead, it requires disciplined judicial scrutiny that gives due regard to both.
In a 2024 case, the Supreme Court stated: "If the state or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the state or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious."
This consistent stance underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding fundamental rights, even in the face of stringent statutory provisions aimed at national security.
