Synopsis
The Supreme Court ruled that appeals filed under the NIA Act cannot be dismissed solely due to the expiration of the 90-day limitation period, emphasizing the need for fair consideration in such cases.Key Takeaways
- No dismissal of NIA appeals solely for late filing.
- Section 21 allows appeals to High Court.
- Supreme Court not the first instance for UAPA validity.
- Petitioners can transfer cases to Delhi High Court.
- Previous petitions on UAPA provisions were withdrawn.
New Delhi, Feb 4 (NationPress) The Supreme Court stated on Tuesday that no appeal filed under the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act should face dismissal solely due to being filed after the 90-day limitation period has lapsed.
A bench led by CJI Sanjiv Khanna, along with Justices Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan, expressed that appeals from either the accused or victims under Section 21 of the NIA should not be rejected based on the premise that delays exceeding 90 days cannot be overlooked.
Section 21 stipulates that any appeal against a judgment, sentence, or directive from a NIA court can be presented to a High Court.
However, it imposes a limit on the filing of appeals once the 90-day timeframe has expired.
The bench, presided over by CJI Khanna, was reviewing a series of petitions that contested the aforementioned stipulation of the NIA Act, as well as amendments made to the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) in 2019.
The apex court indicated that it should not serve as the first instance to evaluate the legitimacy of the UAPA provisions that empower the government to label individuals as terrorists and confiscate properties.
It remarked: "We cannot be the court of first instance. Let it be first decided by the High Court."
The Supreme Court permitted a request to transfer a case to the Delhi High Court after petitioners contesting the 2019 UAPA Amendment Act reported logistical challenges.
In February of the previous year, the apex court granted permission for the withdrawal of petitions disputing the constitutionality of provisions in the anti-terror legislation.
A bench consisting of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal dismissed the entire set of petitions as withdrawn and directed the petitioners to approach the relevant High Court.
Justice Trivedi's bench remarked, "It is needless to say that the petitioners shall be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum as permissible under the law."
