SUJATA V.MANOHAR - (1.) THIS is a public interest litigation in which the petitioner has prayed for certain reliefs to under-trial prisoners charged under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'TADA'). The petitioner has asked, inter alia, for a direction that the respondents should file a list of detenus lodged in jails in different States under TADA and has asked for a direction for the release of TADA detenus against whom proper evidence is not with the prosecution and where proper procedure prescribed under law is not followed.
(2.) UNDER orders passed from time to time in this petition the States of Gujarat, Rajasthan and Maharashtra as well as the Central Government have filed affidavits giving information relating to the number of cases under TADA pending in different Designated Courts in various States of the country. We have also been furnished with the Statewise numbers of Designated Courts constituted under TADA. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India by Shri A.K. Shrivastava, Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, a statement is annexed showing live cases under TADA and the number of Designated Courts in different States and Union Territories. The statement is as follows : JUDGEMENT_616_2_1996Html1.htm Thus, for example, in the State of Assam the number of live cases are 2908. There is only one Designated Court to try all these cases. In Jammu and Kashmir, there are only four Designated Courts for trial of 5041 cases. In Rajasthan there is only one Designated Court for the trial of 77 cases while in Delhi there are four Designated Courts for the trial of 759 pending case. The number of Designated Courts is also somewhat deceptive in the sense that in some States the existing Sessions Courts are also designated as Courts under TADA, with the result that these Courts do not deal exclusively with the trial of TADA cases. They also deal with other criminal cases. Therefore, the entire time of such Courts is not available for the trial of TADA cases. It is quite clear that in many States there is no prospect of a speedy trial of pending TADA cases. A statement which is annexed to an earlier affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India by Shri R.S. Tanwar, UNDER Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, shows that in respect of 1446 cases under investigation and pending trial in the various States of the country, the detentions involved are 42,488, out which the number of persons actually arrested and under detention is 5998. Those released on bail are 30,357, and those absconding and yet to be arrested are 6044. This is after taking into account the cases which were reviewed by the State Review Committees, and were either withdrawn or where charges under the provisions of TADA were dropped. The total number of cases so reviewed comes to 9203 and the number of persons discharged from TADA provisions are 7968. The National Human Rights Commission has also furnished a statement showing the position of TADA detenus in jail as on 30-6-1995. While the statewise figures given by it do not tally with the figures given by the Union of India, the total number of under trials in jail according to the National Human Rights Commission is 6000, (after taking into account its corrections for Assam, Punjab and Rajasthan) which is close to the figure of 5998 given by the Union of India. It is in this context that we have to consider what relief can be granted to detenus under TADA. In the case of Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569 : (1994 Cri LJ 3139), this Court while considering the validity of Section 20(8) of TADA, has observed that while liberty of a citizen must be zealously safeguarded by the Courts, nonetheless the Courts while dispensing justice in cases like the one under TADA Act, should keep in mind not only the liberty of the accused but also the interest of the victims and their near and dear ones and above all the collective interest of the community and the safety of the nation so that the public may not lose faith in the system of judicial administration and indulge in private retribution. It also observed that the invocation of the provisions of TADA cases, the fact of which do not warrant its invocation, is nothing but sheer misuse and abuse of the Act by the Police
(3.) LOOKING to the nature of the crime and the paramount interest of the society this Court held that the conditions imposed under Section 20(8) for the release of TADA under trials on bail did not violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It, however, gave directions for the constitution of Review/Screening Committees in each State and at the Centre to ensure that the provisions of TADA were correctly invoked in the cases pending before the Designated Courts. The purpose of constituting such committees was to ensure a higher level of scrutiny regarding applicability of the provisions of TADA to the case in point. The need for such committees is amply borne out by the results which have been annexed in the affidavits filed on behalf of the Union of India before us relating to the number of cases so reviewed by the Review Committees where it has been found that the provisions of TADA ought not to have been applied. We are, however, sorry to note that not a single case filed by C.B.I. has been so reviewed although the Review Committee, it is said, has examined all the cases. A more independent and objective scrutiny of these cases by a Committee headed by a retired judge is obviously necessary. In spite of such review, from the figures which we have cited above, it is clear that there is very little prospect of a speedy trial of cases under TADA in some of the States 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. We are conscious of the fact that even the trial of ordinary criminal cases does take some time because of the Courts being over loaded with work and the concept of 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 under trials 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 right of a speedy trial may, in some cases, the necessary to meet the requirements of Article 21.;