Judgment Intelligence
OtherShaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India & Ors.
Writ petition (public interest litigation; number not printed in the Supreme Court's print); reported as (1996) 2 SCC 616 and JT 1996 (2) 719
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 27 February 1996
- Bench
- Chief Justice A.M. Ahmadi and Justice Sujata V. Manohar
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 — Sections 3, 4, 5, 20(8), 20(9); Indian Penal Code — Sections 120B, 147; Constitution of India — Articles 14, 21
Final Outcome
The writ petition was disposed of with these bail directions and conditions, which may be relaxed for groups (c) and (d), and for special reasons group (b), and may not be applied in exceptionally grave cases such as the Bombay Bomb Blast case unless trial is unduly delayed (paras 14-15, 18).
Key holdings
- Stringent bail provisions such as Section 20(8) TADA rest on the presumption that the trial will take place without undue delay (para 10).
- Where a speedy trial is not practical, release on bail may be necessary to meet the requirements of Article 21 (paras 6, 8).
- Courts should apply bail provisions strictly to hardcore accused and liberally to those whose role is less serious, then try hardcore cases on priority (para 12).
- Group (b) undertrials held five years or more get bail if the trial will not end within six months, unless their antecedents endanger the complainant, family or witnesses; groups (c) and (d) after three and two years (para 14).
- The directions were a one-time measure; the State must investigate efficiently and set up enough Designated Courts (paras 16-17).
Brief Facts
A public interest petition sought relief for undertrials charged under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, including the release of detenus against whom there was no proper evidence (para 1). Affidavits showed 14,446 live TADA cases and only 248 Designated Courts: Assam had one court for 2,908 cases, and Jammu and Kashmir four for 5,041 (para 2). Some Designated Courts were ordinary Sessions Courts that also tried other cases, so in many States there was no prospect of a speedy trial (para 2). The National Human Rights Commission put the number of TADA undertrials in jail at 6,000 (para 3).
Court's Findings
Kartar Singh upheld the bail conditions in Section 20(8) under Articles 14 and 21 and directed review committees (paras 4-5). The Court regretted that no CBI case had been reviewed and said a committee headed by a retired judge was necessary (para 5). Because Section 20(8) severely restricts bail, the trial must conclude within a reasonable time; where that is not practical, bail may be necessary to meet Article 21 (para 6), as held for the NDPS Act in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (para 7). Stringent bail provisions are justified "on the presumption that the trial of the accused will take place without undue delay" (para 10). The pragmatic course is to identify hardcore accused by their role and apply the bail provisions strictly to them and liberally to others, then try the hardcore accused on priority (para 12). Group (a), hardcore undertrials, get no liberal treatment; group (b), whose acts attract Sections 3 or 4, may get bail after five years if trial will not end within six months; groups (c) and (d) after three and two years (paras 13-14).
Legal Principle
When a statute severely restricts bail, the State must ensure the trial concludes within a reasonable time. If it cannot, release on bail, embedded in the right to a speedy trial, may be needed to satisfy Article 21, graded by each undertrial's role and period in custody (paras 6, 10, 12).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569
Upheld the bail conditions in Section 20(8) TADA under Articles 14 and 21, stressing the interests of victims, the community and the nation as well as liberty, and directed Review/Screening Committees against misuse of TADA; such stringent provisions are justified on the presumption of a trial without undue delay.
- Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India & Ors. (1994) 6 SCC 731
Considering similar bail restrictions under the NDPS Act, directed release of undertrials on bail in certain situations: deprivation of liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not in consonance with Article 21.
