In a crucial decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that the requirement to supply the grounds of arrest in writing to the accused applies to cases registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967. The ruling was made while declaring the arrest of NewsClick founder and Editor-in-Chief Prabir Purkayastha as illegal. The Court reaffirmed its previous judgment in Pankaj Bansal v Union of India and stated that the communication of grounds of arrest is a constitutional safeguard. This decision holds significant implications for the protection of individual rights in cases involving the UAPA.
Supreme Court Upholds Rights of Accused in UAPA Cases
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India has mandated that the grounds of arrest must be provided in writing to the accused in cases registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) of 1967. The ruling came in response to a petition challenging the arrest of NewsClick founder and Editor-in-Chief Prabir Purkayastha.
Background
The UAPA is a controversial anti-terrorism law that has been criticized for its broad definition of "unlawful activities" and its potential for misuse. In recent years, there have been allegations that the law has been used to target political opponents and dissenting voices.
The Ruling
The Supreme Court's ruling is a major victory for the rights of the accused in UAPA cases. The Court held that the communication of grounds of arrest is a constitutional safeguard that cannot be denied to individuals arrested under the UAPA. This requirement ensures that the accused are informed of the reasons for their arrest and have an opportunity to challenge the legality of their detention.
The ruling cited the Court's earlier judgment in Pankaj Bansal v Union of India, in which it had ruled that the provision of grounds of arrest is essential for the protection of liberty and dignity. The Court emphasized that this principle applies to all cases of arrest, including those made under the UAPA.
Implications
The Supreme Court's ruling has significant implications for the protection of individual rights in cases involving the UAPA. It reduces the potential for arbitrary arrests and detentions, and ensures that the accused have access to fair and transparent judicial proceedings.
Top 5 FAQs and Answers
Q1: What is the significance of the Supreme Court's ruling? A: It establishes the constitutional right of accused persons to receive grounds of arrest in writing, even in cases registered under the UAPA.
Q2: What are the potential implications of the ruling? A: It could lead to the release of individuals who have been illegally detained under the UAPA, and it could also deter law enforcement from making arbitrary arrests.
Q3: What are the provisions of the UAPA under which the arrest was made? A: The precise provisions of the UAPA under which Prabir Purkayastha was arrested are not mentioned in the available information.
Q4: Has the Supreme Court previously ruled on UAPA-related matters? A: Yes, in Pankaj Bansal v Union of India, the Court had ruled that the provision of grounds of arrest is essential for the protection of liberty and dignity.
Q5: What are the other controversies surrounding the UAPA? A: The UAPA has been criticized for its broad definition of "unlawful activities" and its potential for misuse to target political opponents and dissenting voices.
After deciding to vacate the Budgam Assembly seat, Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has officially announced that he will be representing the Ganderbal constituency. He expressed his gratitude towards the people of Budgam and promised to continue working for them over the next five years. This move marks the end of the six-year period when J&K didn't have an Assembly and the NC, with support from other parties, will continue to hold the majority in the 95-member Assembly.
After 26 days of fasting, activist Sonam Wangchuk and his supporters have finally ended their protest after receiving assurance from the Ministry of Home Affairs regarding talks on Ladakh's demands. The protest was organized by Wangchuk and others to demand Sixth Schedule status for Ladakh, which aims to protect its cultural and environmental heritage. The Ministry has assured that the high-powered committee, which was holding talks with representatives from Ladakh, will resume discussions on December 3.
Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, the 50th Chief Justice of India, is known for his progressive judgements and unwavering commitment to upholding the Constitution. With a legacy inherited from his father, the longest-serving CJI, Justice Chandrachud has become one of the most influential and respected judges in the Supreme Court. Notably, his lead judgement in the historic right to privacy case and his stance against the criminalisation of same-sex relations under Section 377 have solidified his reputation as a champion of individual rights and liberties.
Union Minister H.D. Kumaraswamy has expressed his confidence in becoming the Chief Minister of Karnataka again before 2028. He highlighted his previous 14-month stint as CM, promising to use his experience to deliver good governance if he gets a full five-year term. Kumaraswamy also criticized the current Congress government, urging the people to give him a chance to implement his plans for the state's prosperity.
Supreme Court Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud shared his experiences working on the controversial Ayodhya-Babri Masjid dispute case, stating that it was a difficult case to adjudicate. He revealed that he even prayed to God to help find a solution. This statement was made during his address to a gathering in a village in Khed taluka. Soon after, the 5-judge bench, led by Justice Chandrachud, delivered the verdict in November 2019, allowing the construction of a Ram Temple on the disputed site. The judge also mentioned that regular prayers and faith can lead to finding a solution in challenging cases.
The Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, accused US President Joe Biden of using nuclear arms talks as a ploy to gain electoral points for Democratic Party candidate Kamala Harris. Lavrov also revealed that Moscow is against engaging in strategic stability talks without preconditions, as urged by the US, in order to prevent any unilateral military advantages. This comes ahead of the upcoming US presidential elections on November 5, in which Harris was selected as the Democratic nominee after Biden's withdrawal following a controversial televised debate with Republican nominee Donald Trump.
In a recent case at the Kerala High Court, an FIR against a university director accused of sexually harassing a female student during a youth festival was quashed. The court held that the physical contact that occurred was not sexual in nature, but rather part of a resistance effort to maintain discipline. The petitioner argued that the FIR was filed with malicious intent due to a delay in filing and strict event guidelines implemented by the university. The court cautioned the petitioner against any retaliatory measures that may hinder the complainant's studies.
Police sources have revealed that the Delhi Police is investigating a possible Khalistani link in the blast near a CRPF school in Rohini on Monday. This comes as a response to a group claiming responsibility for the explosion, as the police have sought details from messaging app Telegram. The blast caused damage to property but no injuries were reported, with an FIR mentioning the discovery of a "white powder" and CCTV footage of a suspect being recovered.
The 65th state-level Police Commemoration Day was observed in Chandigarh, where Director General of Police (DGP) Punjab Gaurav Yadav paid homage to the bravehearts who sacrificed their lives for the sake of the nation. Addressing the gathering, DGP Yadav highlighted the bravery and courage of the Punjab Police, and their efforts in maintaining peace and rooting out militancy. He also discussed the measures being taken to combat street crime and drug sales, and assured support to the families of martyrs.
The Supreme Court has put a hold on the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights' directive to discontinue funding for Madrasa Boards, following a plea filed by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind. The plea argued that the NCPCR's action was discriminatory and unconstitutional, and violated several fundamental rights. The Commission, which is responsible for protecting children's rights across India, had recommended that non-Muslim children enrolled in madrasas be moved to mainstream schools under the RTE Act of 2009.