14-day timeline to give sanction under UAPA is mandatory, not discretionary: SC
The Supreme Court said non-compliance with statutory timelines breaches procedural requirements and violates the rights of the accused
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that the 14-day timeline for granting sanctions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) is mandatory and not discretionary, making it obligatory for both the central and state governments to act swiftly in matters of national security.
Settling conflicting interpretations by various high courts, the top court made it obligatory for the governments to adhere to the timeline or face severe legal repercussions, including quashing criminal proceedings due to delay.
The judgment by a bench of justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol came with a sharp reminder to the government that there is no room for complacency when dealing with national security issues. Highlighting the critical nature of timely decision-making, the bench noted: “It is expected of the Executive, in furtherance of the ideal of protection of national security, that it would work with speed and dispatch.”
The ruling stressed that any delay in the sanction process could undermine the very purpose of the anti-terrorism law, which is designed to combat terrorism and unlawful activities with efficiency and accountability. To be sure, the court clarified that its ruling in respect of the strict adherence to the timeline shall not affect any previous decision and that the judgment shall apply prospectively.
It also highlighted that non-compliance with the statutory timelines not only breaches the procedural requirements but also violates the rights of the accused. “Timelines in such cases serve as essential aspects of checks and balances and, of course, are unquestionably important. Without such limitations, power will enter the realm of the unbridled, which is antithetical to a democratic society,” added the court.
“UAPA being a penal legislation, strict construction must be accorded to it. Timelines imposed by way of statutory rules are a way to keep a check on executive power which is a necessary position to protect the rights of accused persons.”
The judgment sets a new standard for how sanctions under the UAPA must be handled, making it clear that delays are unacceptable and violative of the procedural rights of the accused. By reaffirming the mandatory nature of the timelines, the judgment has not only resolved conflicting judicial interpretations but also reinforced the importance of accountability and efficiency in national security matters.
Interpreting the 2008 rules under UAPA, the court pointed out that rules 3 and 4 have used the word “shall” in providing a specific time period for making recommendation and granting sanction, implying a clear legislative intent to complete the sanctioning process by the stipulated time.
Under UAPA, prosecution of individuals accused of terrorism requires prior sanction from the government. This sanction process involves a two-step timeline. First, an independent authority must review the evidence gathered by investigators and make a recommendation to the government within seven working days. Second, the government then has an additional seven working days to decide whether to grant or deny the sanction based on the authority’s recommendation.
However, there was no unanimity among high courts about whether these timelines were merely directory - suggesting that delays wouldn’t necessarily invalidate the process- or mandatory, requiring strict compliance. The high courts of Bombay and Jharkhand viewed the deadlines as directory.
Dealing with a case from Jharkhand, the top court put an end to the uncertainty, ruling that the timelines are indeed mandatory and non-negotiable. The 14-day period is not just a procedural formality, the bench ruled, adding it serves as a safeguard to ensure that decisions are made with due diligence and without undue delay.
“The legislative intent is clear. Rules made by virtue of statutory powers prescribe both a mandate and a time limit. The same has to be followed...The procedures qua sanctions provided in such legislation are meant to be followed strictly, to the letter more so to the spirit. Even the slightest of variation from the written word may render the proceedings arising therefrom to be cast in doubt,” said the judgment authored by justice Karol.
The judgment maintained that any failure to adhere to the prescribed deadlines could lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings, placing a significant onus on the authorities and governments to act within the stipulated period.
The bench underscored that that timelines are critical to prevent the abuse of power and ensure a fair evaluation of the evidence before proceeding with prosecution. “One week’s time, given to both the authorities is to enable them to independently evaluate... It is not for the purpose of the investigation itself... There have to be certain limitations within which administrative authorities of the Government can exercise their powers,” it said.
The judgment also held that the validity of sanction should be challenged at the earliest instance available, before the trial court. “If such a challenge is raised at an appellate stage it would be for the person raising the challenge to justify the reasons for bringing the same at a belated stage. Such reasons would have to be considered independently so as to ensure that there is no misuse of the right of challenge with the aim to stall or delay proceedings,” it noted.
The court was adjudicating an appeal by Fuleshwar Gope, a resident of Jharkhand’s Gumla district, who was arrested in July 2020 in a terror funding case linked to the People’s Liberation Front of India, a banned Maoist organisation. He challenged the validity of the sanction order while referring to the breach of the 14-day timeline, besides arguing that there was no independent review since both the recommending and the granting authorities took merely a day each in granting sanction. The bench, however, rejected his appeal, noting that Gope was arrested later while the investigation continued. The court also did not find any merit in the plea that the sanction was bad just because the two authorities took a day each in deciding the matter. “Solely on the ground that the time taken was comparatively short or even that other orders were similarly worded cannot call the credibility of the sanction into question,” it held.
