New Delhi: The Supreme Court has asserted that in cases involving terror acts, the rights of the accused, while important, are subservient to the national interest. The apex court emphasized that individual liberty cannot override national security concerns, especially when dealing with offenses that endanger the integrity and sovereignty of the nation.
This ruling came while the court was hearing a case related to the Jnaneshwari Express derailment of 2010, where the accused were granted bail by the Calcutta High Court. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision, emphasizing the gravity of the offense and clarifying the limits of personal liberty when national security is at stake. Justices Sanjay Karol and N.K. Singh, presiding over the bench, stressed that while individual liberty is crucial, it is not absolute and is subject to reasonable exceptions, including considerations of national interest.
The 2010 Jnaneshwari Express derailment resulted in the deaths of 148 people and injuries to 170. The incident involved the removal of railway tracks, leading to the collision of the express train with a goods train. The investigating agency alleged that the act was a part of a larger conspiracy linked to extremist activities. The accused were charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Railways Act, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The Supreme Court acknowledged the importance of Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects life and personal liberty, but clarified that it is not the only factor to be considered when granting bail in cases involving national security. The court stated that the High Court had erred in solely relying on Article 21 to grant bail, overlooking the severity of the offense. The Supreme Court also addressed the applicability of Section 436-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which allows for the release of undertrials who have served a significant portion of their maximum sentence. The court clarified that this provision does not apply to offenses where one of the possible punishments is death, as was the case with some of the charges against the accused.
Despite disagreeing with the High Court's reasoning, the Supreme Court chose not to revoke the bail of the accused, considering the prolonged period they had already spent in custody and the fact that they had not misused their liberty after being released. The court noted that the accused had been out on bail for over three years and had not attempted to abscond, influence witnesses, or obstruct justice. The Supreme Court also expressed concern over the inordinate delay in the trial, which had been ongoing for fifteen years with only 176 out of 204 witnesses examined. The court emphasized the need for expeditious trials, especially in cases involving serious offenses under stringent laws like the UAPA.
The Supreme Court's judgment underscores the delicate balance between individual rights and national security. It serves as a reminder that while personal liberty is a fundamental right, it is not absolute and can be reasonably restricted in the interest of national security and public order. The ruling also highlights the importance of ensuring speedy trials, even for those accused of serious offenses, to prevent prolonged incarceration and uphold the principles of justice and fairness. The court noted, "The rights of an individual are always subservient to the nation's interest".
