Daily Current Affairs : 23-July-2024

The Supreme Court of India recently granted bail to a Nepali citizen who had been detained for over nine years under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). This decision is significant because it highlights the importance of a speedy trial and emphasizes the protection of an individual’s fundamental rights, especially when prolonged detention occurs.

The Case and Its Importance

The Nepali citizen had been in jail for more than nine years without a trial, which led to his bail being granted by the Supreme Court. The Court pointed out that prolonged detention without trial violates the constitutional right to life and personal liberty. The Court ruled that statutory restrictions, such as those in the UAPA, should not override these basic rights.

Right to Speedy Trial

One of the key arguments in the case was the violation of the right to a speedy trial. Under the Constitution of India, every individual is entitled to a fair and timely trial. The Supreme Court stressed that if a person has been in custody for a long time without being tried, their right to personal liberty is being infringed upon.

Precedent and Consistency

This ruling is consistent with a previous case in 2021, Union of India v. K A Najeeb, where the Supreme Court also granted bail to a person detained under the UAPA due to the long delay in the trial. The Court has shown a growing willingness to grant bail in such cases, even though the UAPA is known for its strict provisions against bail.

Why This Matters

  • Protection of Rights: The Supreme Court’s decision underlines the importance of safeguarding fundamental rights, particularly the right to personal liberty.
  • Setting Precedent: The ruling continues the trend of prioritizing constitutional rights over statutory restrictions in cases of prolonged detention.
  • Focus on Speedy Trials: It also emphasizes the need for a timely trial, reminding authorities to avoid delays that can violate an individual’s constitutional freedoms.

Important Points:

  • Supreme Court grants bail to a Nepali citizen detained for over nine years under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
  • The Court emphasized the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.
  • Prolonged detention without trial violates the constitutional right to life and personal liberty.
  • The ruling follows a 2021 precedent (Union of India v. K A Najeeb), where the Court granted bail due to delayed trials under UAPA.
  • Statutory restrictions like those in UAPA should not override an individual’s constitutional rights.
  • The decision highlights the need for timely trials and avoids unnecessary delays in legal proceedings.
  • The ruling strengthens the trend of protecting fundamental rights despite strict provisions in laws like UAPA.

Why In News

The Supreme Court of India granted bail to a Nepali citizen who had been detained for over nine years under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), citing his right to a speedy trial and emphasizing that prolonged detention without trial violates fundamental constitutional rights. The Court’s decision highlights the importance of ensuring timely justice, particularly in cases involving lengthy incarceration without a resolution.

MCQs about SC Grants Bail, Emphasizes Right to Speedy Trial

  1. Why did the Supreme Court of India grant bail to the Nepali citizen detained under the UAPA?
    A. Because the UAPA law was found unconstitutional.
    B. Due to the violation of the right to a speedy trial.
    C. Because the citizen was found innocent.
    D. Because the citizen’s trial was completed.
    Correct Answer: B. Due to the violation of the right to a speedy trial.
    Explanation: The Supreme Court emphasized that the prolonged detention of the Nepali citizen for over nine years without trial violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial, leading to the decision to grant him bail.
  2. What fundamental right did the Supreme Court focus on when granting bail to the detainee?
    A. Right to freedom of speech.
    B. Right to a speedy trial.
    C. Right to own property.
    D. Right to freedom of assembly.
    Correct Answer: B. Right to a speedy trial.
    Explanation: The Court highlighted the importance of the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental constitutional right, which had been violated due to the prolonged detention of the individual without trial.
  3. Which previous case influenced the Supreme Court’s decision in this matter?
    A. Union of India v. K A Najeeb (2021).
    B. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978).
    C. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973).
    D. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017).
    Correct Answer: A. Union of India v. K A Najeeb (2021).
    Explanation: The Supreme Court’s decision in this case follows the precedent set in the 2021 Union of India v. K A Najeeb case, where bail was also granted under similar circumstances due to delayed trials under the UAPA.
  4. What did the Supreme Court emphasize regarding statutory restrictions like UAPA in this case?
    A. Statutory restrictions should always be prioritized over constitutional rights.
    B. Statutory restrictions like UAPA should not override constitutional rights.
    C. Statutory restrictions should be disregarded in cases of long-term detention.
    D. UAPA should be revised to eliminate bail provisions.
    Correct Answer: B. Statutory restrictions like UAPA should not override constitutional rights.
    Explanation: The Supreme Court emphasized that while laws like UAPA exist to prevent unlawful activities, they should not override the fundamental constitutional rights, such as the right to life and personal liberty, especially when there is prolonged detention without trial.

Boost up your confidence by appearing our Weekly Current Affairs Multiple Choice Questions

Loading