The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act's near-impossible bail conditions under Section 43D(5) unconstitutionally strip accused persons of their liberty for years without trial.
Aaj ki debate ka motion yeh hai: 'UAPA ki bail restrictions nagrik ki maulik swatantrata ka ullandhan karti hain' — yeh ek bahut hi mahatvapurn samvidhanik prashn hai jo personal liberty aur rashtriya suraksha ke beech ke nazuk santulan ko chhuta hai. Main chahti hoon ki dono paksh is mudde par apne tark rakhein, aur hum milkar is constitutional tension ko samjhein. Toh Counsel Aarav, aap pehle apna paksh rakhein — please begin.
My lord, main yeh maanta hoon ki jab koi kanoon ek accused ko bail maangne ka haq deta hai lekin saath hi itni impossible conditions laad deta hai ki bail practically milti hi nahi — to woh kanoon sirf kaghaz par hai, asal mein personal liberty ka hanan hai. UAPA ki bail restrictions ka yehi asar hai: years tak undertrial hona, bina conviction ke, jo Article 21 ke core ko seedha tod deta hai. Bail restrictions itni kathor nahi ho sakti ki woh liberty ke guarantee ko hi meaningless bana dein — yeh paksh ki central dalil hai.
My Lord, main Bina hoon, aur main vipaksh ki taraf se yeh kehna chahti hoon ki UAPA ki bail restrictions fundamental rights ka ullanghna nahi karti — balki yeh ek targeted, carefully calibrated statutory framework hai jo Article 21 ki us hi 'procedure established by law' ki sharti ko poori karti hai, kyunki Maneka Gandhi ka yeh siddhaant bhi maanta hai ki procedure fair ho, aur terror-related offences mein rashtriya suraksha ka balance bhi usi fairness ka hissa hai. Paksh yeh bhool jaata hai ki Article 13 ke under judicial review ka matalab statute ko instantly void karna nahi — severability aur proportionality ke doctrines court ko yeh dekhne dete hain ki kya restriction legitimate State objective ke liye reasonable hai, aur anti-terror law mein woh hai. My Lord, jab tak main yeh nahi dikhati ki restriction arbitrary ya irrational hai — sirf stringent hona unconstitutional nahi hota.
Ref: Constitution of India · Article 21; Constitution of India · Article 13
My Lord, vipaksh kehta hai ki UAPA ki bail restrictions ek justified procedural safeguard hain — lekin main poochna chahta hoon: koi bhi procedure tab tak 'established by law' nahi hoti jab tak woh fair, just aur reasonable na ho, jaise Maneka Gandhi ne Article 21 ko interpret kiya hai. Article 13 ke under, jo bhi law fundamental rights se inconsistent hai, woh void hai to the extent of inconsistency — aur UAPA ki Section 43D(5) ek accused ko practically bail-proof jail mein daal deti hai bina conviction ke, jo Article 21 ki spirit ke seedha khilaaf hai. Isliye main firmly kehta hoon: yeh restriction personal liberty ka violation hai, koi justified safeguard nahi.
Ref: Constitution of India · Article 21; Constitution of India · Article 13
My lord, paksh ne jo argument diya hai — ki UAPA ki bail restrictions 'procedure established by law' ke under valid hain — yeh sunne mein accha lagta hai, lekin Article 21 sirf kisi bhi procedure se satisfy nahi hota; Maneka Gandhi ke baad yeh procedure fair, just aur reasonable bhi hona chahiye, aur ek provision jo accused ko practically bail-proof bana de, woh is standard par kabhi khara nahi utar sakti. Main yeh bhi kehna chahti hoon ki Article 13 ke under judicial review ki shakti courts ko yahi authority deti hai ki woh dekhein koi kanoon fundamental rights ke kitna alagaav karta hai — aur jahan alagaav itna gehraa ho ki accused bina trial ke saalon tak jadon mein pada rahe, wahan severed ya voided kiya jaana chahiye. Isliye vipaksh ka stand bilkul clear hai — UAPA ki bail restrictions, jis roop mein hain, Article 21 ki is evolved aur enriched definition ke saath sangat nahi rakhti, aur inhe judiciary ki nazron se gunzarna aur restrict kiya jaana chahiye.
Ref: Constitution of India · Article 21; Constitution of India · Article 13
Aaj ki is debate mein, ek taraf ne kaha ki UAPA ki bail restrictions personal liberty ke maulik adhikar par ek gambhir aur asahya bojh daalti hain — jo kisi bhi loktantrik samaj mein swikaarniya nahi hona chahiye. Doosri taraf ne yeh tark diya ki rashtriya suraksha aur aatankvaad-virodhi kaanoon ki zaroorat itni badi hai ki kuch seemit bail restrictions ek zaruri aur proportionate kadam hain. Meri sujhav yeh rahegi ki Parliament ko ek independent judicial review mechanism banana chahiye — jisme bail applications ek nirdharit samay-seema mein sunwai payein, taaki security concerns aur personal liberty ke beech ek nyayasangat santulan banaya ja sake. Ab main aap sabhi nagarikon se nivedan karti hoon ki aap apni raay dein aur is debate ko rate karein — kyunki yeh jagrookta aap hi ke liye hai.