Name of the Court
Supreme Court of India
All Citations of the Case
(1994) 2 JT 423 : (1994) 2 LW(Cri) 422 : (1994) 3 SCC 569 : (1994) 2 SCR 375
[Judgment Source] https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=300356
Facts of the Case
The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of TADA Acts of 1984, 1985, and 1987 and U.P. CrPC Amendment Act of 1976 which removed Section 438 (anticipatory bail) in Uttar Pradesh. The court was asked to determine whether these Acts infringed upon the fundamental rights under the Constitution.
Law Points Raised
1. Validity of TADA Acts under the Constitution.
2. Violation of Articles 14 and 21.
3. Denial of anticipatory bail in U.P.
4. Procedural rights of accused under special anti-terror laws.
5. Scope of legislative power under Article 13 and 136.
Acts/Provisions/Articles Referred
• Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 13, 14, 136, 139A, 143(1)
• TADA Act, 1985 & 1987
• Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984
• U.P. CrPC Amendment Act, 1976
• Indian Penal Code — Sections 121–123
• Anti-Hijacking Act, 1982 — Sections 4, 5
• Bombay Police Act, 1951 — Section 56
Judgements Referred
A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (discussed indirectly in context of preventive detention).
Obiter Dicta
Special laws like TADA must not bypass procedural safeguards. The balance between national security and fundamental rights must be maintained. Courts must vigilantly guard liberties even during emergencies.
Ratio Decidendi
The TADA Acts were upheld, with the Court holding that the need for special legislation to curb terrorism was valid. However, procedural fairness must not be sacrificed. The deletion of anticipatory bail in U.P. was also upheld as being within legislative competence.
Final Ruling
The Court upheld the constitutionality of the TADA Acts and the U.P. Amendment to CrPC. However, it issued directives to prevent misuse and safeguard procedural rights.
Summary
The Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment, upheld the constitutional validity of TADA Acts while emphasizing the need for procedural safeguards and a proportional response to terrorism. The U.P. amendment removing anticipatory bail was also found valid. This case remains a cornerstone in India's anti-terror jurisprudence.