Individual Rights Subordinate to National Interest: SC
The top court said interfering with the liberty of the accused at this stage, particularly when nothing else holds against them, would not be justified.
By : PTI
Update: 2025-12-11 13:15 GMT
New Delhi: Rights of an individual are always subservient to the nation's interest, the Supreme Court said on Thursday, emphasising that the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution must always be protected, but in cases where the country's security or integrity is called into question, that cannot be the sole ground for granting bail.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh made the observations while hearing an appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against the bail granted to certain accused in connection with the 2010 derailment of the Jnaneswari Express in West Bengal's West Midnapore district.
The Mumbai-bound train had derailed near Jhargram and was then hit by an oncoming goods train, leading to the deaths of 148 passengers. Authorities had said the derailment, which took place at around 1 am on May 28, 2010, was the result of alleged sabotage by Maoists. The incident took place soon after a four-day bandh called by the CPI (Maoist) had come into force.
The top court said interfering with the liberty of the accused at this stage, particularly when nothing else holds against them, would not be justified.
The court said the CBI could not bring to its notice any subsequent development that would justify this interference as serving any fruitful purpose.
"There can be no manner of doubt on the proposition that the Article 21 rights are placed on a pedestal, and rightly so. At the same time though, the individual cannot always be the centre of attention.
"Certain cases, such as the instant one, demand by their very nature and effect that the issue presented is looked at from a much wider point of view, that is, national security. We observe, therefore, that while the Article 21 rights must always be protected, but however, in cases where the security or integrity of the nation is called into question, that cannot be the sole ground of consideration," the bench said.
Issuing a slew of directions, it asked the trial court to take stock of the matter and record in its order the status and the reasons for the trial's pendency for years.
"From that day forth, the matter shall be taken up on a day-to-day basis. The granting of adjournments shall be eschewed unless exceptional circumstances are shown.
"We request the administrative judge of the high court, as nominated by the learned chief justice, to seek a report, every four weeks, from the trial judge and ensure that the directions are being complied with," the bench said.
The apex court said unduly long incarceration, especially as an undertrial, when the crucial aspect of guilt is yet to be decided, is particularly offensive to the sacrosanct right, if not sustainable in accordance with the procedure established by law.
It said circumspection in granting the relief of bail in heinous offences and more so, offences that shock the conscience of the society such as in this case, stems from a concern about public order, societal security and overall peace.
"The scales of Lady Justice must balance, on the one hand, the constitutionally-consecrated and jealously-guarded rights under Article 21 and on the other, the recognition that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to just exceptions, that is, the paramount considerations of national interest, the sovereignty and integrity of the nation.
"In this case, the loss of lives and public property has been immense and there is a grave impact upon the lives of the people connected to those who have died as a consequence or have been injured because of the ulterior motives in carrying out this alleged offence against the State. It is this grave and serious impact that has to be balanced against the guarantees of Article 21 -- for these offences, by whomsoever committed, strike at the nation's security and are an effort to undermine its sovereign authority," the court said.
It said courts are duty bound to scrutinise claims for bails in such cases with heightened but fair-minded vigilance.