SHAHEEN WELFARE ASSOCIATION versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 1123 · Decided: 27-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
--
SHAHEEN WELFARE ASSOCIATION 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
FEBRUARY 27, 1996 
[A.M. AHMADI, CJ. AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.] 
Terrorist and Disntptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 : S.20(8). 
Trial-Designated Cowt~~Jnadequate number of-Unde1trials languishing in 
jails-Undertrials divided into different categories-Release on 
A 
B 
bail-Guidelines for -Laid down. 
C 
Under the terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, 
Designated Courts were set up. However, in some State the existing Session 
Court were also designated as Courts under TADA, with the result that 
these Courts did not deal exclusively with the trial of TADA cases. These 
Courts also dealt with other criminal cases, and so the entire time of such D 
Court was not available for the trial of TADA cases. Thus in many States 
there was no prospect of a speedy trial of pending TADA cases. 
In this public interest litigation petition, direction is sought for the 
release of TADA detenus against whom proper evidence was not available E 
with the prosecution, and where proper procedure prescribed under law 
was not followed. 
Disposing of the petition, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. There is very little prospect of a speedy trial of cases F 
under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 in 
some State because of the absence of an adequate number of Designated 
Courts even in cases where a chargesheet has been filed and the cases are 
ready for trial. Even the trial of ordinary criminal cases does take time 
time because of the Courts being overloaded with work and the concept of 
G· 
a speedy trial in the case of TADA cases must be viewed in the context of 
pendency in relation to criminal trials also. But when the release of 
undertrials on bail is severely restricted as in the case of TADA by virtue 
of the provisions of Section 20(8) of TADA, it becomes necessary that the 
trial does proceed and conclude within a reasonable time. Where this is 
not practical, release on bail which can be taken to be embedded in the H 
1123 
1124 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
right of a speedy trial may, in some cases, be necessary to meet the 
requirement of Article 21. (1129-C-E] 
Ka1tar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994] 3 SCC 599, referred to. 
1.2. It has become necessary to grant some relief to those persons 
B who have been deprived of their personal liberty for a considerable length 
of time without any prospect of the trial, being concluded in the near 
future. Undoubtedly, the safety of the community and of the nation needs 
to be safeguarded looking to the nature of the offences these under trials 
have been charged with. But the ultimate justification for such deprivation 
c of liberty pending trial can only be on their being found guilty of the 
offences for which they have been charged. (1130-B-C] 
1.3. The conflicting claims of individual liberty versus the right of 
the community and the nation to safety and protection from terrorism and 
disruptive activities have to be reconciled. While it is essential that in-
D nocent people should be protected from terrorists and disruptionists it is 
equally necessary that terrorists and disruptionists are speedily tried and 
punished. In fact the protection to innocent civilians is dependent on such 
trial and punishment. The conflict is generated on account of the gross 
delay in the trial of such persons. This delay may contribute to absence of 
E 
F 
proper evidence at the trial so that the really guilty may have to be 
ultimately acquitted. It also causes irreparable damage to innocent per-
sons who have been wrongly accused of the crime and are ultimately 
acquitted, but who remain in jail for a long time pending trial because of 
the stringent provisions regarding bail under TADA. They suffer severe 
hardship and their families may be ruined. (1130-D-F] 
Supreme Cowt Legal Aid Committee Representing Unde1tlial Plisoners 
v. Union of India & Ors., (1994) 6 SCC 731, referred to. 
1.4. Bearing in mind the nature of the crime and the need to protect 
the society and the nation, TADA has prescribed in Section 20(8) stringent 
G provisions for bail. Such stringent provisions can be justified looking to 
the nature of the crime, on the presumption that the trial of the accused 
will take place without undue delay. No one can justify gross delay in 
disposal of cases when undertrials perforce remain in jail, giving rise ~o . 
possible situations that may justify inv

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.