SHAHEEN WELFARE ASSOCIATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(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 : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_616_2_1996Html1.htm</FRM>

(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.