National security outweighs personal liberty in terror cases, rules SC

The derailment, the bench noted, was allegedly intended to force the government to withdraw security forces deployed in the Maoist-affected region and resulted in public property damage estimated at Rs 25 crore.

The Supreme Court, on Thursday, ruled that the constitutional guarantee of life and personal liberty under Article 21, although fundamental, cannot justify the grant of bail in cases involving threats to national security and integrity under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh set aside the bail granted by the Calcutta High Court to the accused persons in the 2010 Jnaneswari Express derailment case, while allowing an appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The case pertains to the derailment of the Mumbai-bound Jnaneswari Express near Jhargram in West Bengal’s West Midnapore district in the early hours of May 28, 2010. The train derailed after its tracks were allegedly sabotaged and was then hit by a goods train approaching from the opposite direction, resulting in the deaths of 148 passengers and injuries to more than 170 others.

Investigating agencies had attributed the incident to Maoist sabotage during a bandh called by the CPI (Maoist).

The bench held that the principle of “bail, not jail” is not absolute and must give way in cases where offences have grave implications for the sovereignty and security of the country.

“Individual liberty is subject to just exceptions, particularly when national interest is at stake,” the court observed.

In its judgment, Justice Karol stated that offenses of this nature require a broader perspective focused on national security. The court noted that while Article 21 remains a cornerstone of constitutional rights, it must be balanced against the larger imperatives of public safety and national integrity.

The Bench, rejecting the plea for bail based on prolonged incarceration, said Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows bail to undertrials who have served half of the maximum sentence, was not applicable in terror-related cases where the death penalty is a possible punishment.

Thus, the accused’s incarceration for over 12 years could not be a ground for release.

The court also underlined that while citizens have a constitutional right to protest, such dissent must remain within the confines of law. Acts of violence such as sabotaging railway infrastructure and endangering civilian lives, it said, cannot be condoned.

The derailment, the bench noted, was allegedly intended to force the government to withdraw security forces deployed in the Maoist-affected region and resulted in public property damage estimated at Rs 25 crore.

The judgment further drew attention to the reverse burden of proof under the UAPA, directing trial courts to ensure that accused persons are furnished with all documents relied upon by the prosecution to enable them to prepare an effective defence.

Given the age of the case, over 15 years, the Supreme Court directed that the trial be concluded expeditiously.