Srinagar:The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has underscored the constitutional dangers of prolonged incarceration in UAPA cases, observing that delayed trials under stringent anti-terror laws can effectively convert the legal process itself into punishment.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal made the observations while directing a Special Court in Srinagar to expedite the trial of a Baramulla youth booked under multiple provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), Explosive Substances Act and IPC in a 2020 militancy-related case.
The 26-year-old petitioner, Arif Billa Sheikh of Bomai, Baramulla, has remained in custody since his arrest in March 2020. Although the chargesheet was filed in October 2020 and charges were framed in March 2021, the trial has remained pending for over five years.
In a strongly worded judgment, the High Court stressed that the seriousness of allegations under UAPA cannot override constitutional guarantees available to an accused person. The court observed that where trials remain pending for years and undertrials continue to languish in jail without conclusion of proceedings, the process itself risks becoming punitive, raising serious concerns about misuse of stringent laws through endless incarceration without adjudication.
The court reiterated that every accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty in accordance with law, and held that prolonged detention without timely trial violates the fundamental right to speedy justice guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Justice Nargal observed that while UAPA offences involve issues concerning national security and public order, constitutional courts are duty-bound to balance those concerns with individual liberty. The judgment said constitutional protections cannot be eclipsed merely because allegations are grave in nature.
The court relied extensively on Supreme Court rulings dealing with prolonged incarceration in terror-related cases, including judgments holding that even under special laws with stringent bail conditions, courts must intervene where trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time.
Significantly, the High Court observed that Parliament itself, while enacting special anti-terror legislation, had ensured safeguards against indefinite detention by mandating day-to-day trials before Special Courts under Section 19 of the National Investigation Agency Act.
The judgment noted that such cases are legally required to receive priority over ordinary criminal matters, but the mandate was not being effectively implemented.
The court also highlighted the broader consequences of delayed criminal trials, saying prolonged pendency weakens evidence, affects witness recollection and undermines public confidence in the justice delivery system.
Warning against routine adjournments, the court observed that unnecessary delays defeat the very object of speedy trial and make constitutional guarantees “illusory”. It added that liberty deprived without timely adjudication transforms legal procedure into punishment, which is impermissible in law.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations, the High Court directed the Special Court concerned to accord priority to the case and make all possible efforts for its expeditious conclusion.
