Why is it in the News?

The Supreme Court recently ordered the release of NewsClick Editor Prabir Purkayastha after hearing his plea, challenging the arrest by Delhi Police in an Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) case.

Context:

• The recent ruling by the Supreme Court of India reaffirms its dedication to due process, dispelling assertions of subservience to the executive branch.
• Through a landmark judgment, the Court underscored the indispensable role of due process, especially concerning the arrest and detention of Prabir Purkayastha, founder-editor of Newsclick.
• This verdict emphasizes the crucial disparity between reasons for arrest and the grounds for arrest, emphasizing that the latter must be tailored to the individual and formally communicated in writing to safeguard personal liberty.

Why did the Supreme Court Invalidate Purkayastha’s Arrest?

• The court invalidated the arrest due to the absence of provided grounds, citing a precedent set in the Pankaj Bansal case (2023).
  • This landmark ruling emphasized the constitutional right, under Article 22(1), to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing, deeming any infringement of this right as vitiating the arrest and remand process.
• Furthermore, the verdict underscored the fundamental and statutory right of an arrested person to receive a written copy of the grounds of arrest without exception.
  • The court criticized the clandestine manner in which the procedure was conducted, noting that the accused was deprived of the opportunity to defend himself and avail legal representation.
• Additionally, the judgment clarified that an FIR serves to initiate criminal proceedings and is not exhaustive in detailing grounds of arrest.
  • The court emphasized that the grounds of arrest must convey specific, personal facts to the accused, distinct from general reasons for arrest.

What is the Due Process of Law?

• Due process of law is a foundational legal principle that ensures the fair and just application of laws while protecting individual rights.
• The concept requires the state to adhere to established legal rules and principles in every case, ensuring that all legal rights owed to a person are respected.
• It serves as a safeguard against the arbitrary exercise of government power.

Significance:

• Fairness and Reasonableness: Due process emphasizes fairness, reasonableness, justness, and non-arbitrariness in legal proceedings.
• Invalidation of Inequality: Any procedural inequality in the law can be rendered invalid under due process.
• Legislative Oversight: Courts consider legislative intent while evaluating statutes in light of due process.
• Protection of Individual Rights: Due process emphasizes the importance of individual rights and grants courts the authority to nullify biased laws.
• Adherence to Basic Legal Procedures: Laws must follow a fundamental process to receive state assent.

Historical Background:

• First mentioned in a statute by British King Edward III in the 14th century.
• The Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution (1791) introduced due process in a constitutional framework.
• In India, due process was invoked by freedom fighters against unjust colonial laws.
• The Constituent Assembly considered including due process in India's Constitution but ultimately adopted a "procedure established by law" instead.

Evolution through Case Laws:

• The Supreme Court's interpretation of due process evolved over time.
• Initial judgments, such as A K Gopalan (1950) and ADM Jabalpur (1976), limited due process by focusing on the narrow meaning of "procedure established by law."
• The Bank Nationalisation case (1970) extended due process to property rights.
• The landmark Maneka Gandhi case (1978) established due process as an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty, requiring laws to be reasonable, just, fair, and non-arbitrary.

Concerns Regarding the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) 1967 and Due Process of Law:

The UAPA 1967 raises concerns regarding due process of law due to several provisions that deviate from established criminal law principles. These include:

• Extended Remand and Custody Periods: UAPA allows for 30-day remand orders instead of the usual 15 days and extends the maximum period of judicial custody before filing a chargesheet from 90 to 180 days.
  • In the 2023 Pramod Singla case, the Supreme Court highlighted the potential for abuse in preventive detention laws and emphasized the need for strict procedural adherence.
• Controversial Bail Provisions: Section 43D(5) of the Act makes obtaining bail extremely difficult for suspects if the court believes there are reasonable grounds to presume the charges are true.
  • The accused must prove the case is false without inviting the court to evaluate evidence, which human rights defenders argue is draconian and undermines due process.
• Expanded Scope Over Time: The Act was amended in 2004 and 2013 to broaden its coverage, including the declaration of unlawful associations, punishment for terrorist acts, and activities threatening the country's security.
  • This expanded scope, along with an increased ban on organizations from two to five years, raises concerns about potential misuse and erosion of due process protections.
• Pendency of Cases: According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), over 12,000 people were imprisoned under such laws in 2021, with 76% being undertrials in 2022.
  • Only 18% of UAPA cases result in conviction, and there is an alarming 89% pendency rate for UAPA cases in courts.
  • This raises questions about the effectiveness and fairness of the Act in ensuring due process.

Achieving a Balance Between State Security and Due Process of Law:

Ensuring national security while preserving due process of law requires a nuanced approach that respects individual rights and maintains checks on state power. The following strategies can help achieve this balance:

• Clear Legal Framework: Establish precise laws that define the limits and procedures for state actions in the name of security.
  • This framework should ensure accountability and prevent misuse of authority.
  • A parliamentary committee can oversee and recommend changes to security legislation.
• Strengthened Judicial Oversight: Enhance judicial mechanisms to review and check arbitrary actions by state authorities, including scrutinizing the legality of detentions and other security measures.
  • A judicial review committee can assess cases under laws like the UAPA.
• Independent Monitoring Bodies: Create independent bodies to monitor the implementation of security laws and investigate abuses.
  • These entities should hold state actors accountable, with organizations like the National Commission for Minorities and NHRC playing crucial roles.
• Human Rights Training: Train law enforcement and security personnel on human rights standards, emphasizing the importance of protecting individual liberties while maintaining security.
  • Develop training programs in collaboration with institutions such as the National Police Academy.
• Public Participation: Encourage public engagement in security policy discussions through platforms like MyGov.
  • This fosters transparency and acceptance of policies that balance security and rights.
• International Cooperation: Collaborate with international organizations like UNESCO and press freedom groups to promote best practices, upholding press freedom and ensuring a safe environment for journalists and media workers, as outlined in the UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists.

Conclusion

As India continues to evolve, it is crucial to ensure that stringent laws, such as the UAPA, do not overshadow the fundamental rights of its citizens. Achieving a balance between state security and individual liberties is vital not only for the protection of personal freedoms but also as a testament to the strength and integrity of India's democratic society. By fostering a legal and constitutional ethos that values this equilibrium, India can pave the way for continued progress, safeguarding the well-being of its people and the future of its democracy.

Why is it in the News?

The top court has a chance, in Property Owners Association vs State of Maharashtra, to resolve the clash between fundamental rights and Directive Principles of State Policy.

Context:

• In a recent hearing before a nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India in Property Owners Association vs State of Maharashtra, two crucial questions have surfaced concerning the interpretation and implementation of constitutional provisions.
• The initial query revolves around elucidating the concept of "material resources of the community" as articulated in Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution.
• The subsequent issue delves into the potential discord between legislation crafted to fulfil the objectives delineated in Article 39(b) and the fundamental rights to equality and liberty enshrined in Part III of the Constitution.

The Conflict Between Fundamental Rights (FR) and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP):

• Inherent Dilemma: At the core of India's constitutional framework lies a significant tension between fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy (DPSP).
  • Part III guarantees citizens' fundamental rights, while Part IV outlines DPSPs as guiding principles for state action.
  • This tension stems from the divergent nature of these provisions:
    • fundamental rights are legally enforceable
    • whereas DPSPs serve as moral and political directives without judicial enforceability.
• Clash of Objectives: The conflict between fundamental rights and DPSPs arises from conflicting priorities: individual liberties versus collective welfare.
  • While fundamental rights focus on safeguarding individual autonomy and limiting state interference, DPSPs underscore the state's responsibility to foster social and economic justice for citizens' well-being.
  • This tension is compounded by India's diverse societal fabric, marked by varying social, economic, and cultural landscapes.
• Historical Discourse: The conflict between fundamental rights and DPSPs has sparked considerable debate and legal scrutiny throughout India's constitutional history.
  • Courts have grappled with striking a balance between state intervention for societal welfare and safeguarding individual freedoms, especially when legislative measures aimed at fulfilling DPSPs impinge on fundamental rights.
  • The Supreme Court's pivotal role in adjudicating these conflicts has significantly shaped India's constitutional democracy.
• Intensified Debate: During the 1970s, the conflict between fundamental rights and DPSPs reached a zenith, prompting amendments to shield certain laws from judicial review.
  • The landmark Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973) case sought to address this conflict, yet it persisted, reflecting the ongoing struggle to reconcile competing constitutional imperatives.

What is the Article 31C of the Indian Constitution?

• The 25th Amendment (Birth of Article 31C): Enacted through the 25th amendment to the Indian Constitution, Article 31C was introduced to shield laws aimed at actualizing Article 39(b) and (c) from judicial scrutiny concerning potential violations of fundamental rights.
  • This constitutional provision sought to safeguard legislative measures crafted to secure the material resources of the community, shielding them from challenges under Articles 14 and 19, which safeguard equality and various freedoms, respectively.
• Kesavananda Bharati Case (Challenging Article 31C): The landmark Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973) case questioned the validity and breadth of Article 31C.
  • The Supreme Court deliberated on whether Article 31C, by immunizing certain laws from fundamental rights challenges, infringed upon the basic structure of the Constitution.
  • While affirming the principle of judicial review and the supremacy of the Constitution's basic structure, the ruling left uncertainties about the extent to which Article 31C could restrict fundamental rights.
• Expansion via the 42nd Amendment: Despite judicial scrutiny in Kesavananda, Parliament expanded Article 31C's reach through the 42nd Amendment in 1976.
  • This amendment aimed to widen the immunity granted to laws furthering directive principles, extending beyond Article 39(b) and (c) to encompass any directive principle.
  • The 42nd Amendment marked a significant shift in the equilibrium between fundamental rights and directive principles, sparking concerns over potential encroachments on individual liberties.
• Minerva Mills Case  (Judicial Intervention): The constitutionality of the expanded Article 31C faced judicial scrutiny in Minerva Mills vs Union of India (1980).
  • In a seminal verdict, the Supreme Court struck down the 42nd Amendment, emphasizing the symbiotic relationship between fundamental rights and directive principles within the constitutional framework.
  • Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud's assertion regarding fundamental rights serving as a check against unchecked state authority underscored the significance of this ruling.
• Ambiguities and Pending Matters: Following the Minerva Mills case, ambiguities persisted regarding the status of Article 31C and its alignment with the Constitution's basic structure.
  • Justice Y.V. Chandrachud's divergent opinions in Minerva Mills and Waman Rao vs Union of India added complexity to the issue.
  • The absence of a definitive Supreme Court ruling on the validity of Article 31C has perpetuated the tension between fundamental rights and directive principles.

Property Owners Association Vs State of Maharashtra: Resolving a Constitutional Conundrum

• Comprehensive Legal Examination by the Supreme Court: At the heart of this case lies a critical examination of a law granting a state government board full control over dilapidated buildings, contingent upon the consent of at least 70% of residents.
  • The legality of this law is under scrutiny, particularly regarding its potential infringement on fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14 and 19, which ensure equality and various freedoms, respectively.
• Rebalancing Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles: The verdict in the Property Owners case holds profound significance for recalibrating the equilibrium between fundamental rights and directive principles in India's constitutional fabric.
  • It will delineate whether laws designed to uphold directive principles, such as acquiring dilapidated buildings for the common good, can withstand challenges based on fundamental rights.
  • This raises fundamental questions regarding the hierarchy of rights and duties within the constitutional framework and the extent to which the state can limit individual liberties for the collective welfare.
• Addressing Ambiguities and Pending Issues: The Property Owners case offers an opportunity for the judiciary to clarify ambiguities surrounding the interpretation and implementation of Article 31C, considering previous judicial precedents.
  • Prior conflicting rulings in cases like Kesavananda Bharati and Minerva Mills have left unresolved queries regarding the validity and scope of Article 31C, particularly concerning its alignment with the Constitution's basic structure.
  • Despite subsequent judgments like Waman Rao and Sanjeev Coke vs Bharat Coking Coal (1982), which followed, the Supreme Court has yet to provide a definitive analysis of Article 31C introduced by the 25th amendment and its compatibility with the Constitution's foundational principles.
  • By offering clarity on these matters, the Supreme Court can foster a more coherent and uniform approach to reconciling the divergent demands of fundamental rights and directive principles.

Conclusion

The verdict in the Property Owners case stands as an opportunity to reinforce the core tenets of equality, liberty, and social justice embedded within the Indian Constitution. By delicately reconciling the safeguarding of individual rights with the advancement of societal well-being, the judiciary holds the key to preserving the integrity of India's constitutional democracy. Such a decision would ensure that principles of justice and fairness remain paramount in the governance of the nation, fostering a more inclusive and equitable society.