The Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. Examine the tension between national security imperatives and constitutional safeguards for the

GS3 Terrorsim
The Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. Examine the tension between national security imperatives and constitutional safeguards for the accused, with reference to the judiciary's evolving position on prolonged pre-trial detention.

Examine

  • 10 marks
  • 8 min
  • 150 words
  • Hard

The Hindu

Read article →

Introduction

Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. However, in cases involving terrorism and national security laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), stringent bail provisions often create tension between collective security and individual liberty, especially during prolonged pre-trial detention.

Tension between National Security and Constitutional Safeguards

Need for stringent national security measures

  • Terror offences involve threats to sovereignty, public order and national integrity.
  • Parliament enacted stricter provisions under UAPA Section 43D(5), making bail difficult if accusations appear “prima facie true”.
  • State argues that premature release may hamper investigation, destroy evidence or threaten witnesses.

Constitutional concerns

  • Presumption of innocence and the right to fair trial are integral to Article 21.
  • Prolonged incarceration without conviction effectively becomes “punishment before trial”.
  • Delays in investigation and trial undermine due process and human dignity.

Judiciary’s evolving position

Earlier restrictive approach

  • In NIA vs Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019), the Supreme Court adopted a stringent interpretation of bail under UAPA, limiting judicial scrutiny at the bail stage.

Shift towards liberty-oriented interpretation

  • In Union of India vs K.A. Najeeb (2021), the Court held that constitutional courts can grant bail despite statutory restrictions when trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time.
  • In Vernon Gonsalves vs State of Maharashtra (2023) and subsequent rulings, courts emphasized balancing security concerns with civil liberties.
  • Recently, courts have increasingly recognized that “bail is the rule, jail the exception” even in special laws where prolonged detention violates Article 21.

Value Addition

  • Justice Malimath Committee (2003): stressed balancing victims’ rights with accused persons’ rights.
  • NCRB Prison Statistics: Over 75% of Indian prisoners are undertrials, highlighting systemic delays.
  • Hussainara Khatoon case (1979): recognized speedy trial as a fundamental right under Article 21.

Conclusion

National security is essential for constitutional governance, but constitutional morality requires that extraordinary laws do not erode fundamental liberties. The judiciary’s evolving approach seeks a constitutional balance where security concerns coexist with due process, speedy trial and protection of personal liberty.