The Supreme Court held that while Article 21 rights are vital, they cannot be the only basis for bail in cases involving national security. The Court said individual liberty is secondary when the country’s sovereignty and integrity are at risk.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday said that while the rights of every individual must be protected, these rights become secondary when the nation’s security or integrity is at stake.
The court made it clear that Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, is extremely important, but it cannot be treated as the only factor when bail is sought in cases connected to threats against the country.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh made these remarks while hearing the CBI’s appeal against the bail granted to some accused in the 2010 Jnaneswari Express derailment case in West Midnapore, West Bengal.
The Mumbai-bound passenger train had derailed near Jhargram around 1 am on May 28, 2010, and was hit by a goods train soon after.
The tragedy killed 148 passengers. Authorities had linked the incident to alleged sabotage by Maoists, which took place soon after a four-day bandh declared by CPI (Maoist) began.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court said that at this stage, interfering with the liberty of the accused was not justified, especially when the CBI could not point to any new development that would show such interference was necessary or useful.
The court highlighted the competing concerns between individual rights and national interest, stating:
“There can be no manner of doubt on the proposition that the Article 21 rights are placed on a pedestal, and rightly so. At the same time though, the individual cannot always be the centre of attention.”
The Bench added that certain cases require a broader view beyond personal liberty:
“Certain cases, such as the instant one, demand by their very nature and effect that the issue presented is looked at from a much wider point of view, that is, national security. We observe, therefore, that while the Article 21 rights must always be protected, but however, in cases where the security or integrity of the nation is called into question, that cannot be the sole ground of consideration.”
The Supreme Court also issued directions to ensure the long-pending trial moves forward. It told the trial court to examine the current status of the case and explain why the trial has remained pending for so many years.
The Bench said:
“From that day forth, the matter shall be taken up on a day-to-day basis. The granting of adjournments shall be eschewed unless exceptional circumstances are shown.”
The Bench further requested the High Court’s administrative judge, nominated by the Chief Justice, to monitor the case regularly and added:
“We request the administrative judge of the high court, as nominated by the learned chief justice, to seek a report, every four weeks, from the trial judge and ensure that the directions are being complied with.”
The Supreme Court emphasised that keeping an accused in jail for too long as an undertrial is against Article 21 unless it strictly follows the law.
The judges noted that bail in heinous crimes must be considered carefully, especially when the offence shocks society or threatens peace and public order.
Balancing individual liberty with national interest, the Bench said:
“The scales of Lady Justice must balance, on the one hand, the constitutionally-consecrated and jealously-guarded rights under Article 21 and on the other, the recognition that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to just exceptions, that is, the paramount considerations of national interest, the sovereignty and integrity of the nation.”
The court pointed out the seriousness of the Jnaneswari Express tragedy:
“In this case, the loss of lives and public property has been immense and there is a grave impact upon the lives of the people connected to those who have died as a consequence or have been injured because of the ulterior motives in carrying out this alleged offence against the State. It is this grave and serious impact that has to be balanced against the guarantees of Article 21 — for these offences, by whomsoever committed, strike at the nation’s security and are an effort to undermine its sovereign authority.”
The Bench concluded that courts must examine bail requests in such sensitive cases with strict but fair scrutiny, keeping in mind both constitutional rights and national security concerns.
It said courts are duty-bound to maintain “heightened but fair-minded vigilance” when such offences are alleged.
Read More Reports On Article 21
