Supreme Court Reaffirms Strict Compliance Requirements for TADA Confessional Statements

I. Introduction

The case of State (CBI) v. Mohd. Salim Zargar @ Fayaz (2025 INSC 376) came before the Supreme Court of India on appeal by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The underlying incidents, which date back to 1990, involved the kidnapping and subsequent murder of senior officials in Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, allegedly carried out by a group of accused purportedly belonging to a banned militant organization. Originally tried under various provisions of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA), the trial court (referred to as the Special Court) acquitted the respondents due to the inadmissibility of their alleged confessional statements and the lack of reliable corroborative evidence.

The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the confessional statements, recorded by a police officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police (SP), could be relied upon as admissible evidence under Section 15 of TADA and, if so, whether their procedural deficiencies rendered them invalid. The Court also examined important legal principles regarding issue estoppel and whether a prior decision rejecting the same confession in a different case had a binding effect on this proceeding. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the acquittals, finding that the statutory safeguards for recording confessions were not strictly followed.

II. Summary of the Judgment

In Criminal Appeal No. 1681 of 2009, which concerned the abduction and murder of the Vice-Chancellor of Kashmir University and his Personal Secretary, the Supreme Court underscored that:

• The trial court had acquitted the accused after rejecting their confessional statements as inadmissible.
• The Court found that the procedural safeguards under Section 15 of TADA and Rule 15 of the TADA Rules had not been properly adhered to in the recording of the alleged confessions.
• The confessional statements were recorded in heavily guarded facilities (BSF camp and Joint Interrogation Centres) on the same day each accused was produced, leaving no meaningful “cooling-off” or reflection period.
• An issue also arose regarding the same confessional statement of one accused (respondent no. 1, i.e. Mohd. Salim Zargar) having already been rejected by a Special Court in an unrelated TADA proceeding. The Supreme Court affirmed that the previous rejection barred reliance on that confession again (applying the principle of issue estoppel).
• Due to the lack of independent evidence, non-recovery of the weapon, and legal defects surrounding the confessional statements, the Supreme Court upheld the Special Court’s view that the prosecution had failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

In Criminal Appeal No. 1770 of 2009, which involved the murder of the then General Manager of HMT Watch Factory in Srinagar, the Court reached the same conclusion. The alleged confession of the same accused figure again formed the crux of the State’s case, and similar procedural faults existed. The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal likewise, reinforcing its stance on strict compliance with TADA’s safeguards.

III. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

Below are some noteworthy precedents and how they shaped the Court’s reasoning:

1. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569: A Constitution Bench decision upholding the constitutionality of Section 15 of TADA but laying down mandatory guidelines. The Court here reiterated that confessions under TADA must comply strictly with procedural safeguards to be admissible.
2. SN Dube v. NB Bhoir (2000) 2 SCC 254: The Supreme Court observed that confessional statements recorded by a police officer under Section 15 of TADA should be read as a whole and must be subjected to careful scrutiny to determine their voluntariness and compliance with statutory rules.
3. Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 13 SCC 1: Reiterated the need for the Court to check procedural compliance in recording confessions under TADA. Though not discussed in depth in the present Judgment, it underscores that TADA’s unique confession-admissibility rule must be applied judiciously.
4. Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu (2020) 5 SCC 118: Pointed to the principle that if the guidelines and safeguards are not fulfilled, any confession to a police officer would be treated as inadmissible.

B. Legal Reasoning

The central thrust of the Supreme Court’s decision lies in the interplay between Section 15 of TADA and Rule 15 of the TADA Rules. While Section 15 confers admissibility on confessions recorded by a police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, Rule 15 prescribes mandatory procedural safeguards such as:

• Warning the accused that making a confession is not compulsory and that it can be used against them.
• Recording the confession in the language of the accused, or in another official/recognized language if that is not feasible.
• Ensuring the confession is made voluntarily and that the accused is given sufficient time to reflect before the statement is finalized.
• Appending a memorandum at the end, requiring the officer to certify that the statement was made freely and with full knowledge of its consequences.

In the present case, the Supreme Court scrutinized the manner in which the alleged confessions were recorded. It found:

• No meaningful “reflection period” was provided; the confessions were recorded on the same day of the accused’s production before the Superintendent of Police, undermining voluntariness.
• The confessional statements were recorded in locations that were “daunting and overbearing,” such as a BSF camp and Joint Interrogation Centres, casting further doubt on the freedom of the atmosphere.
• There were unexplained discrepancies, including incorrect dates and no clear documentation regarding how, when, or by whose custody the accused was produced before the recording officer.
• No direct mention of any question-and-answer procedure to establish that the confessions were voluntary.
• An earlier ruling had already rejected the confession of one of the accused (under the principle of issue estoppel), thereby precluding its use in this subsequent matter.

C. Impact

This Judgment significantly tightens the standard for admissibility of confessional statements under TADA by reaffirming the stringent requirements of Section 15 and Rule 15. While TADA has been repealed, numerous cases from its era continue through the courts; thus, this ruling guides future courts dealing with older TADA prosecutions:

• Investigators and prosecuting agencies must strictly comply with the mandatory capture of procedural details, demonstrating an absence of coercion or inducement.
• Courts are reminded to closely scrutinize any confession obtained under TADA, given it departs from the standard ban on admitting police confessions in regular criminal trials.
• The principle of issue estoppel—once a particular confessional statement is deemed unreliable in one proceeding—may bar re-litigation of its reliability in another, especially if no new or different facts arise.
• This ruling underscores the balance between national security legislation and the fundamental rights of the accused, emphasizing respect for fair procedure even in the context of strong anti-terror laws.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

1. Section 15 of TADA: A special provision that allows confessions made to a high-ranking police officer (SP or above) to be admissible in evidence. Normally, under the Indian Evidence Act, confessions to police are inadmissible. TADA carved out this exception, but only under strict procedural conditions.
2. Rule 15 of the TADA Rules: Lays out the procedure for recording such confessions, including reading back the statement to the accused in their language, ensuring voluntariness, and appending a memorandum confirming the statement was made freely.
3. Reflection Period: The idea that an accused needs a certain amount of “cooling-off” time before giving a confession, so that they can reflect and decide freely whether they truly wish to confess.
4. Issue Estoppel: Prevents re-litigation of a kind of “factual finding,” once conclusively determined by a competent court in earlier proceedings. If a prior proceeding has already rejected a confession as involuntary or inadmissible, courts often will not accept the same confession in subsequent trials absent new or differing circumstances.

V. Conclusion

In State (CBI) v. Mohd. Salim Zargar @ Fayaz, the Supreme Court has reinforced that the special nature of TADA permits confessions to police officers only if recorded in the most meticulous manner. Failure to comply with the procedural prerequisites—ensuring the voluntariness of the confession and strictly following every provision in Section 15 and Rule 15—renders such confessions inadmissible. This Judgment recalibrates the balance between counterterrorism statutes and the fundamental procedural safeguards of the accused, recognizing that even under TADA, judicial scrutiny cannot be diluted.

By upholding the acquittals, the Court effectively reminds law enforcement agencies that “draconian” or exceptional legislation does not reduce the importance of following due process. It establishes a precedent emphasizing that any lapse in the chain of procedures will vitiate the confession’s credibility. This outcome guarantees that only properly recorded TADA confessions are permitted, thereby preserving the integrity of criminal proceedings.