SACHIN HINDURAO WAZE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition praying for striking down Sec. 15 (1) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA) for being ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India or read it down to save it from being rendered unconstitutional; and to quash and set aside the impugned order dtd. 2/9/2021 passed by the respondent no. 1 (Union of India through Under Secretary, CTCR Division, Ministry of Home Affairs) and grant consequential reliefs.

(2.) A preliminary objection was raised that this Court would not have territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter of the present petition in light of relief prayed for. Accordingly, this Court on 3/3/2022 directed the parties to first address this Court on the following issue:

(3.) Mr. Santosh Paul, Senior Advocate addressing arguments on behalf of the petitioner canvassed that the impugned order dtd. 2/9/2021 granting sanction for prosecution under Sec. 45 (1) UAPA for prosecuting the accused persons (which included the petitioner charge-sheeted under Ss. 16, 18 and 20 of UAPA) was passed on the basis of recommendations received by Respondent no. 1 from the Authority constituted under Ministry s order No - 11034/1/2009/IS-IV dtd. 3/7/2015 consisting of a retired judge and retired Law Secretary for making an independent review of the evidence gathered in course of investigation. Learned Senior Counsel highlighted the fact that the Authority gave its report to Respondent no.1 on 28/8/2021 within a day of having received the investigation report from the National Investigation Agency (NIA) together with a list of documents collected and witnesses examined during the course of the investigation. Therefore, addressing specifically on the issue of territorial jurisdiction, the learned senior counsel asserted that since this decision which it was seeking to quash and set aside was taken by the Respondent no. 1 in New Delhi based upon the report of the Authority also based in New Delhi, this Court would have jurisdiction to hear the matter.