By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Accept
ApniLawApniLawApniLaw
  • Home
  • Law Forum
  • Find Lawyers
  • Legal Services
  • Legal News
  • Legal Jobs
  • Legal Articles
    • Documentation
    • Marriage and Divorce
    • Land Dispute & Will
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Supreme Court
    • High Court
  • Bare Acts
    • BNSS
    • BNS
    • BSA
    • CrPC
    • DPDP
    • Hindu Marriage Act
    • IPC
    • POCSO
Reading: Supreme Court Allows Challenge to UAPA Sanctions on Specific Legal Grounds
Share
Notification Show More
Font ResizerAa
ApniLawApniLaw
Font ResizerAa
  • Supreme Court
  • High Court
  • Acts
  • Documentation
  • BNSS
  • Home
  • Law Forum
  • Find Lawyers
  • Legal Services
  • Legal News
  • Legal Jobs
  • Legal Articles
    • Documentation
    • Marriage and Divorce
    • Land Dispute & Will
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Supreme Court
    • High Court
  • Bare Acts
    • BNSS
    • BNS
    • BSA
    • CrPC
    • DPDP
    • Hindu Marriage Act
    • IPC
    • POCSO
Have an existing account? Sign In
Follow US
  • Advertise
© 2022 Foxiz News Network. Ruby Design Company. All Rights Reserved.
ApniLaw > Blog > News > Supreme Court Allows Challenge to UAPA Sanctions on Specific Legal Grounds
NewsSupreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Challenge to UAPA Sanctions on Specific Legal Grounds

Amna Kabeer
Last updated: November 24, 2024 4:14 pm
Amna Kabeer
10 months ago
Share
Supreme Court Allows Challenge to UAPA Sanctions on Specific Legal Grounds
Supreme Court Allows Challenge to UAPA Sanctions on Specific Legal Grounds
SHARE

The Supreme Court has permitted a challenge to UAPA sanctions, allowing individuals to contest their validity on specific legal grounds. The ruling stresses that any challenge to UAPA sanctions must be raised through early objections. This is to ensure a fair and timely review process.

Contents
Sanction Process Under Section 45 of UAPAGrounds For UAPA SanctionsComparison With CrPC and PC Act

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) can be challenged on the grounds that the recommending authority either failed to apply its mind or did not review sufficient material. However, the Court stressed that accused individuals should ideally raise such objections at the earliest possible opportunity.

A bench comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol made these remarks while interpreting Section 45(2) of the UAPA. The Court emphasised that the UAPA does not have a provision similar to the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). It also doesn’t have a similarity with the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, which can save an invalid sanction.

“The UAPA lacks provisions to save sanctions from being invalidated due to irregularities, unlike other laws such as the CrPC or the PC Act. This indicates that the Act’s inbuilt two-step review process is deemed sufficient by the legislature,” the Court observed.

Sanction Process Under Section 45 of UAPA

Under Section 45 of the UAPA, the sanction process involves two stages. First, an independent recommending authority, appointed by the Central or State Government, reviews the evidence and makes a recommendation for sanction. Following this, the government reviews the recommendation along with the investigation report before granting the sanction. Both the recommending authority and the government are given a strict timeline of seven working days to complete these steps.

The Court noted that while this dual review process aims to ensure the application of mind, once a sanction is deemed vitiated, it cannot be rescued by any provision under the UAPA. Despite the UAPA’s strict procedures, the Court clarified that accused individuals can challenge the validity of sanctions even at a later stage, provided they can substantiate their claims with evidence.

Grounds For UAPA Sanctions

The Supreme Court outlined three primary grounds on which UAPA sanctions can be challenged: (1) all relevant material was not placed before the authority, (2) the authority did not properly apply its mind to the material, and (3) the material was insufficient. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive, the Court clarified.

The Court has also cautioned that such challenges should not be used as a tactic to delay valid prosecutions. The party contesting the sanction must present evidence supporting their claims, which would typically be done before the trial court.

In the case before the Court, which involved a UAPA prosecution with 113 out of 125 witnesses already examined, the justices refrained from delving into the validity of the sanctions at this stage. However, they reiterated that challenges to sanctions should be raised early in the trial. This is to allow for proper adjudication by the trial court.

Comparison With CrPC and PC Act

Drawing comparisons with other legislations, the Court highlighted that the CrPC and the PC Act contain provisions that allow sanctions to be saved despite errors or irregularities. For instance, Section 465 of the CrPC provides for the saving of sanctions under Section 197. Additionally the PC Act contains similar provisions. However, no such saving clause exists under the UAPA.

The ruling underscores the critical need for timely and well-founded challenges to UAPA sanctions. This can done while reaffirming the procedural rigour intended by the Act.

You Might Also Like

Secularism As Core of India’s Nationalism: Indian National Congress Appeals To Supreme Court

Section 107 CrPC: Security for Keeping the Peace in Other Cases

Section 105L CrPC: Application of Chapter – Code of Criminal Procedure

Criminal Family Background Not a Ground to Deny Passport: J&K High Court

Section 254 CrPC: Procedure When Not Convicted – Indian Code of Criminal Procedure

TAGGED:IndiaIndian LawLawRightsSupreme CourtUAPA
Share This Article
Facebook Email Print
Previous Article How To Navigate Cross-Border Custody Battles As An NRI How To Navigate Cross-Border Custody Battles As An NRI
Next Article Punjab and Haryana High Court Punjab And Haryana High Court Criticises ED’s Interrogation Practices In Surender Panwar Case
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow US

Find US on Social Medias
FacebookLike
XFollow
InstagramFollow
YoutubeSubscribe

Weekly Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter to get our newest articles instantly!
Popular News
Patna High Court: Calling Wife 'Bhoot', 'Pisach' Not Cruelty under Section 498A IPC
High CourtNews

Patna High Court: Calling Wife ‘Bhoot’, ‘Pisach’ Not Cruelty under Section 498A IPC

Apni Law
By Apni Law
1 year ago
– Person Arrested Not To Be Detained More Than Twenty-Four Hours.
Supreme Court Urges Training For Police On Differentiating Cheating From Criminal Breach Of Trust
Supreme Court Grants Bail To Ashutosh Garg In ₹1,032 Crore GST Fraud Case
Engaged In Sexually Explicit Discussions On The Show: Gauhati High Court Grants Interim Anticipatory Bail To YouTuber Ashish Chanchlani
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
Ad imageAd image

Your one-stop destination for legal news, articles, queries, and a directory of lawyers in India – all under one roof at ApniLaw.

Stay Updated

  • BNSS
  • News
  • Documentation
  • Acts
  • Supreme Court
  • High Court

Information

  • ApniLaw Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service

Advertise

  • Advertise with us
  • Newsletters
  • Deal

Find Us on Socials

ApniLawApniLaw
Follow US
© ApniLaw 2025. All Rights Reserved.
bg-n
Join Us!
Subscribe to our newsletter and never miss our latest news, podcasts etc..
Zero spam, Unsubscribe at any time.

More Interesting News

Supreme Court Grants Bail to Humayun Merchant In Money Laundering Case

Trial of Corruption Cases: How the Legal Process Works (Section 4 & 5)

How To File A Case Under The Prevention Of Corruption Act?

Can You Be Punished for Trying to Influence a Government Official under Prevention of Corruption Act? (Section 9 & 10)

login
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?