The ruling of the highest judicial body, the Supreme Court, on Wednesday annulled a decision of the Madras High Court, which had granted release to eight accused members and officials allegedly affiliated with the Popular Front of India (PFI). The Court stated that the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) was established to effectively counter specific illegal activities of individuals and groups, combat terrorist actions, and impose reasonable constraints on the civil liberties of individuals in the interest of preserving the sovereignty and unity of India.
A panel consisting of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal declared that this court has frequently construed anti-terrorism statutes to strike a harmonious balance between the civil liberties of the accused, the human rights of victims, and the compelling interests of the state.
Justice Trivedi, the author of the decision on behalf of the panel, emphasized that national security invariably takes precedence and any action in support of terrorist activities, whether violent or non-violent, is subject to restriction.
The panel noted that the investigation revealed that the activities and covert objectives of the PFI were geared towards a communal and anti-national agenda aimed at establishing Islamic governance in India through the radicalization of Muslims and the polarization of societal issues.
“After being enlisted as members of the PFI, they were incited towards violent terrorist actions through introductory and advanced training courses,” it asserted.
“The UAPA is one of several statutes enacted to effectively prevent specific unlawful activities of individuals and groups, combat terrorist actions, and impose reasonable constraints on the civil liberties of individuals in the interest of preserving the sovereignty and unity of India,” Justice Trivedi reiterated.
The panel acknowledged the legal principle that it should exercise caution in overturning a bail order issued by the High Court. However, it underscored that if such a bail order is found to be unlawful and unreasonable, it must be nullified.
The panel upheld the appeal filed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) against the bail order issued by the Madras High Court in October 2023, asserting that a prima facie assessment based on broad probabilities of their involvement was sufficient to reject bail.
Justice Trivedi remarked that the High Court should not have adopted a lenient approach, especially when there was substantial evidence indicating their prima facie involvement in the alleged offenses under the UAPA.
The panel criticized the High Court for failing to assess the evidence in its correct context and for reaching an erroneous conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to suggest the commission of any offense falling under Section 15 of the UAPA.
“Given the seriousness of the alleged offenses, the respondents’ prior criminal history as detailed in the charge sheet, the brief duration of their custody—barely one and a half years, the severity of the prescribed penalties for the alleged offenses, and the prima facie evidence gathered during the investigation, the High Court’s challenged order cannot stand,” the panel stated.
The NIA contended that the High Court had disregarded evidence indicating the accused’s involvement in radicalizing youth and providing them with training to carry out terrorist acts with the aim of establishing an Islamic State by 2047 through armed struggle.
Considering the charge sheet and other evidence and documents, the panel concluded that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the allegations against the respondents were prima facie true and that the proviso to Section 43(D)(5) would apply, justifying their continued detention without bail.
The apex court ordered the accused to surrender immediately to the NIA and also directed for an expeditious trial since the charge sheet had already been filed in the case.
The NIA had petitioned the Supreme Court to challenge the Madras High Court’s order, issued in October 2023, granting bail to Barakhatullah, Idris, Mohd Tahir, Khalid Mohammad, Syed Khaja, Mohinudeen, Yasar Arafat, and Fayaz Ahmed. Advocate Rajat Nair represented the NIA before the apex court. The High Court had overturned the trial court’s decision, which had refused to grant bail to the accused.
In September 2022, the NIA had registered a First Information Report (FIR) against the respondents and other members and officials of the PFI under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the UAPA. The accused were apprehended on September 22, 2022, and a charge sheet was filed on March 17, 2023.