Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab
(1994) 3 SCC 569
Five-Judge Constitution Bench
Case Summary
FACTS OF THE CASE
The case revolved around the constitutional validity of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA).TADA was enacted to counter terrorism and disruptive activities, granting special powers to law enforcement agencies and creating special courts to try offenses.The petitioners, including Kartar Singh, challenged various provisions of TADA on the grounds that they violated fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India, particularly Articles 14, 19, and 21.
ISSUES
Whether the provisions of TADA, including the establishment of special courts and the procedures followed therein, violate the right to equality (Article 14).
Whether the restrictions imposed by TADA infringe on the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under Article 19.
Whether the procedural safeguards under TADA are consistent with the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21).
Whether the confession made to a police officer under TADA is valid and admissible as evidence.
RELEVANT ARTICLES
Article 14:
The classification under TADA for terrorists and disruptive activities is reasonable and not arbitrary.
The establishment of special courts does not violate the principle of equality.
Article 19:
The restrictions imposed by TADA are reasonable in the context of protecting public order and sovereignty.
Article 21:
Confessions made to police officers are admissible under TADA but must be scrutinized rigorously.
Safeguards must ensure confessions are voluntary and not coerced.
Proportionality:
The Court emphasized balancing individual rights with societal interests in counter-terrorism measures.
JUDGEMENT
The Court laid down the following safeguards to ensure fair application of TADA:
Confessions must be recorded in the presence of a higher-ranking police officer.Detention without bail should not exceed a reasonable period.The law must be applied strictly and not be used against ordinary lawbreakers.The judgment acknowledged the need for stringent anti-terrorism laws while emphasizing constitutional safeguards.It highlighted the judiciary's role in balancing individual freedoms with national security concerns.The decision laid the foundation for discussions on the proportionality of rights in the context of anti-terror legislation.
-Kush Kuthiala
Himachal Pradesh National Law University.
Comments