The Supreme Court of India has clarified that the stringent conditions set by the Watali judgment for granting bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) do not prevent courts from granting bail if the trial is moving at a snail’s pace. The court emphasized that while the UAPA’s provisions are designed to address serious threats to national security, they should not result in indefinite detention without trial. The judiciary must ensure a balance between national security and the fundamental right to a speedy trial.
Background of the Watali Judgment
The Watali judgment, passed in 2019, imposed stringent conditions on granting bail to individuals accused under UAPA. It required the courts to be satisfied that the accusations against the accused were not prima facie true before granting bail. This made it challenging for many accused under UAPA to secure bail, even in cases where trials were significantly delayed.
Supreme Court’s Observations
- Right to Speedy Trial:
The Supreme Court highlighted that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right. Prolonged detention without trial violates this right, and courts must consider this when deciding on bail applications, even under stringent laws like UAPA. - Case-Specific Considerations:
The court noted that each case must be considered on its own merits. If a trial is unduly delayed and there is no substantial progress in the proceedings, the accused should not be left to languish in jail. The courts must assess the reasons for the delay and the potential impact on the accused’s rights. - Judicial Discretion:
The ruling reinforced the importance of judicial discretion. Courts must balance the state’s interest in preventing terrorism and maintaining national security with the individual’s right to liberty and a fair trial.