Introduction
The Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the arrest of NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha underscores the vital importance of adhering to due process of law. The court found his arrest under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), 1967, by the Delhi Police to be invalid. This case highlights the necessity for law enforcement agencies to follow proper legal procedures, especially in cases involving stringent laws like UAPA, where the burden of proof lies heavily on the accused.
Origin of the Article
This editorial is based on the article “SC verdict on Newsclick shows adherence to due process is much more than a procedural requirement” published in The Indian Express on May 17, 2024. The article discusses the Supreme Court’s emphasis on due process in the case of Prabir Purkayastha.
Relevancy for UPSC Students
Understanding the topic of due process of law is crucial for UPSC students. It aligns with the UPSC syllabus under GS Paper 2, covering the Constitution, Fundamental Rights, and Government Policies. Knowledge of such legal principles enhances their grasp of judicial processes and civil liberties, aiding in both their preliminary and main examination preparations.
Why in News
The Supreme Court’s verdict in the case of Newsclick founder-editor Prabir Purkayastha is significant for UPSC aspirants. It underscores the critical importance of due process of law, especially in stringent cases under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), 1967. The ruling reaffirms the necessity of providing written grounds for arrest and detention, echoing past judgments like the Maneka Gandhi Case (1978), which emphasized fairness and non-arbitrariness in legal procedures. Understanding this verdict is crucial for topics related to Fundamental Rights, the Indian Constitution, and Government Policies & Interventions. These topics are frequently covered in the UPSC syllabus.
Supreme Court Verdict on Newsclick
The Supreme Court’s recent verdict on Prabir Purkayastha’s arrest underlines the importance of due process in legal procedures. The court’s decision to invalidate his detention highlights the need for transparency and adherence to constitutional rights, reinforcing the judiciary’s role in safeguarding individual liberties against arbitrary state actions.
Grounds of Arrest were Not Provided
The Supreme Court invalidated Purkayastha’s arrest, citing the lack of provided grounds. This aligns with the Pankaj Bansal case (2023), emphasizing that Article 22(1) of the Constitution mandates that the grounds for arrest be communicated in writing, ensuring the protection of fundamental rights during the arrest and remand process.
Copy of Reasons for Arrest: A Fundamental Right
The court asserted that informing the accused of arrest grounds in writing is a fundamental right. Under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), as in any case, written grounds must be provided, reaffirming the statutory right of the accused to understand the basis of their detention and ensuring transparency and fairness.
Procedure Adopted is Clandestine
The Supreme Court criticized the clandestine procedure adopted by the police, noting that the FIR was not shared until after the remand order. This was seen as an attempt to bypass due process, depriving the accused of legal counsel and the opportunity to seek bail, thus undermining the legal system’s integrity.
FIR Not an Encyclopaedia
The court clarified that an FIR is not an exhaustive document but must provide basic facts to the accused. This ensures that the accused is informed of the grounds of arrest, enabling them to prepare a defense, seek bail, and understand the charges. Thereby upholding the principles of justice and fairness.
Due Process of Law
Due process of law ensures that all legal principles and rights are respected by the state. It balances state power and individual rights, preventing arbitrary actions by the government. This concept is fundamental in maintaining the rule of law and protecting citizens from unjust state actions.
Meaning
Due process of law involves the application of all relevant legal rules to ensure that an individual’s rights are respected. It serves as a safeguard against the misuse of state power, ensuring that any government action follows a legal and just procedure, thereby protecting individual liberties.
Significance
Due process ensures fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness in legal proceedings. It protects individual rights by invalidating any law or action that is unfair or biased. This concept is crucial in maintaining the balance between state authority and personal freedoms, reinforcing the rule of law.
Historical Background
The concept of due process dates back to British King Edward III’s statute and was later incorporated into the American Constitution through the Fifth Amendment (1791). In India, leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak and M.K. Gandhi championed due process, with K.M. Munshi and B.N. Rau influencing its inclusion in India’s legal framework.
Evolution through Case Laws
Indian judiciary’s stance on due process evolved from the regressive A.K. Gopalan case (1950) to the progressive Maneka Gandhi case (1978). Landmark judgments, including ADM Jabalpur (1976) and the Bank Nationalization case (1970), shaped the interpretation of due process, emphasizing reasonableness and fairness in legal procedures.
Also read about Street Vendors Act.
UAPA 1967 and Concerns Regarding Due Process
The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), 1967, raises significant concerns about due process. Its provisions, differing from regular criminal law, stringent bail conditions, expanded scope over the years, and high pendency of cases highlight the challenges in balancing security with individual rights and procedural fairness.
UAPA Provisions Differ From Regular Criminal Law
UAPA provisions allow for extended remand and judicial custody periods, unlike regular criminal law. The Supreme Court in Pramod Singla (2023) criticized preventive detention laws, highlighting their potential for abuse. The UAPA’s procedural deviations necessitate strict adherence to ensure fairness and prevent misuse.
Controversy About Bail Provisions
Section 43D(5) of the UAPA makes obtaining bail challenging, as courts must believe charges are prima facie true. This provision shifts the burden to the accused to prove their innocence without full access to evidence, raising concerns among human rights defenders about its draconian nature and impact on fair trial rights.
Scope Expanded Over The Years
The UAPA’s scope has widened significantly through amendments in 2004 and 2013, covering various aspects of security, including economic security and money laundering. Following the repeal of POTA, the UAPA incorporated provisions for terrorist acts, reflecting the law’s expanding reach and the implications for civil liberties.
Pendency of Cases
According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), over 12,000 people were imprisoned under UAPA in 2021, with a 76% undertrial rate in 2022. The conviction rate for UAPA cases is only 18%, with 89% of cases pending in courts, highlighting inefficiencies and the prolonged legal ordeals faced by the accused.
Balancing State Security and Due Process
Balancing state security with individual rights requires a clear legal framework, robust judicial oversight, independent monitoring bodies, human rights training for law enforcement, public participation in policy discussions, and international cooperation. These measures ensure accountability, fairness, and the protection of fundamental liberties.
Clear Legal Framework
A clear and precise legal framework is essential to prevent misuse of security laws and ensure accountability. Establishing laws with well-defined limits and procedures, overseen by a parliamentary committee, can help maintain a balance between preventing security needs and individual rights, fostering transparency and justice.
Judicial Oversight
Strengthening judicial oversight is crucial to preventing arbitrary state actions. Courts must have the authority to review the legality of detentions and other security measures. Establishing a judicial review committee can ensure adherence to due process, safeguarding individual liberties while addressing security concerns effectively.
Independent Monitoring Bodies
Establishing independent bodies to monitor the implementation of security laws and investigate abuses is vital. Organizations like the National Commission for Minorities and NHRC should be empowered to hold state actors accountable. This will ensure that security operations comply with legal standards and respect individual rights.
Human Rights Training
Comprehensive human rights training for law enforcement is essential to protecting individual liberties. Training programs at institutions like the National Police Academy should emphasize the importance of human rights standards, ensuring that security personnel understand and uphold the principles of due process while maintaining public safety.
Public Participation
Engaging civil society and the public in security policy discussions promotes balanced and widely accepted policies. Public consultations and forums facilitated through platforms like MyGov can help incorporate diverse perspectives, ensuring that security measures respect individual rights and reflect the community’s needs and values.
International Cooperation
Collaboration with international organizations, such as UNESCO and international press freedom groups, enhances the protection of individual rights. Sharing best practices and supporting initiatives like the UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists can help create a safer environment for journalists and uphold press freedom globally.
Conclusion
As India progresses, it must continually strive to ensure that laws, especially stringent ones like the UAPA, do not overshadow the fundamental rights of individuals. Moving forward, India’s legal and constitutional ethos must embody a harmonious balance between state security and individual liberties. This equilibrium is essential not only for the protection of personal freedoms but also as a testament to the maturity and integrity of our democratic civilization.
