Case Title: Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb
The Supreme Court ruled that Section 43D (5) of the UAPA does not preclude Constitutional Courts from granting bail based on a violation of the Fundamental Right to a Speedy Trial.
The bench, which included Justices NV Ramana, Surya Kant, and Aniruddha Bose, also stated that the rigours of the provision will be undermined if there is no likelihood of the trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already served has exceeded a substantial portion of the prescribed sentence.
The court made this observation while dismissing the National Investigation Agency's appeal against the Kerala High Court order granting bail to the accused in the palm-chopping death of Thodupuzha Newman College professor T J Joseph in 2011. The NIA contended that the High Court erred in granting bail without referring to the statutory requirements of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. [This case is about a seven-member gang that chopped off the right palm of a college professor, T J Joseph, as he was returning home from Sunday Mass at 8 a.m. on July 4, 2010. This occurred after the professor allegedly insulted Prophet Mohammed in a question paper he prepared for an internal examination held by the Malayalam department of Newman College in Thodupuzha].
The court noted that, in this case, the High Court exercised its power to grant bail due to the long period of incarceration and the improbability of the trial being completed anytime soon. The High Court's reasons appear to be traceable back to Article 21 of our Constitution, without addressing the statutory embargo created by Section 43D (5) of UAPA, the court observed. The court made the following observations about various judgments:
"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 the commencement of proceedings, Courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against the 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) of UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or wholesale breach of the constitutional right to a speedy trial."
The court upheld the High Court order.