On Thursday(18th July), the Supreme Court granted bail to Sheikh Javed Iqbal, a Nepali citizen detained under UAPA for over nine years, citing his right to a speedy trial. Justices J B Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan emphasized that statutory restrictions should not impede fundamental rights, noting the trial’s extremely slow progress.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India on Thursday(18th July), granted bail to Sheikh Javed Iqbal, a Nepali citizen detained under the stringent Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). This decision was taken by the bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan, who emphasized the fundamental right to a speedy trial, citing that “the trial is proceeding at a snail’s pace.”
Iqbal, who has been incarcerated for over nine years, has seen evidence from only two witnesses recorded during this extended period. Highlighting this prolonged detention, the apex court bypassed the stringent bail provisions under the UAPA. This act mandates a finding of not guilty for the grant of bail, yet the court asserted that “statutory restrictions would not come in the way” if the accused’s right to life and personal liberty, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, has been “infringed.”
This marks the third major instance where the Supreme Court has granted bail despite the UAPA’s rigorous restrictions on such decisions. Section 43(D)(5) of the UAPA imposes additional constraints on granting bail. This section mandates that the public prosecutor must be heard during any bail application process and completely bars bail if there are grounds to believe that the accusation is prima facie true.
ALSO READ: UAPA Cases would Increase; If the BJP Returned to Power|| SC Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves
The Supreme Court’s ruling draws on the precedent set in the 2021 case of Union of India v K A Najeeb, where the Court granted bail in a UAPA case due to delays in the trial. In Najeeb’s case, the accused had been imprisoned for over five years, with 276 witnesses yet to be examined. Referring to the bail conditions in Section 43(D)(5), the court held that –
“Strict provisions will be eased if the trial is unlikely to finish in a reasonable time and the incarceration already served is a significant portion of the prescribed sentence.”
In April of this year, the court invoked a significant ruling to grant bail to Shoma Sen, a former Nagpur University professor and UAPA accused, in the Bhima Koregaon case. This decision referenced the case of K A Najeeb, where the court articulated that-
“A lengthy period of incarceration was deemed a valid reason to grant bail, even with the bail-restricting provision of Section 43D(5) of the 1967 Act.”
This precedent played a crucial role in Sen’s bail decision.
The court further asserted in Shoma Sen’s case that –
“Any deprivation of liberty breaches Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and must be justified as reasonable, following a just and fair procedure, and proportionate to the specifics of the case.”
This statement highlights the importance of ensuring that any restriction on personal liberty adheres to constitutional mandates and maintains fairness and proportionality.
Iqbal, a citizen of Nepal, faces accusations of possessing and knowingly using counterfeit currency under the Indian Penal Code of 1860. He is also charged with committing terrorist acts by causing “damage to the monetary stability of India” under the UAPA. The charges stem from an incident in February 2015, when the Lucknow police allegedly recovered fake Indian currency amounting to Rs 26,03,500 from Iqbal’s possession at the India-Nepal border.
The implications of these cases are profound, particularly in the context of how long-term detention without bail can be challenged. The court’s reference to K A Najeeb’s case underscores the judiciary’s recognition that prolonged imprisonment without bail can be unjust, despite the stringent provisions of Section 43D (5) of the UAPA.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Permits Withdrawal of Petitions Contesting Constitutionality of UAPA
In Shoma Sen’s scenario, the court’s emphasis on the breach of Article 21 of the Constitution of India underscores the fundamental right to personal liberty. This right, as the court pointed out, must be upheld unless there are reasonable, just, and proportionate grounds to deny it. This decision reiterates the necessity for a balanced approach in dealing with cases under stringent laws like the UAPA, ensuring that individual rights are not unduly compromised.
Iqbal’s case further highlights the challenges in balancing national security concerns with individual rights. The recovery of a substantial amount of counterfeit currency allegedly linked to terrorist activities presents a serious allegation.
