Read Time: 07 minutes
It was submitted that the High Court's judgment and its interpretation holds valid in the eyes of law, and is the correct interpretation, which would subsequently be applied to all persons. Further that a 'strict view is to be preferred' and hence applied.
A Bench of Justice MR Shah and Justice Krishna Murari, disposed of an SLP while allowing the State Government of Kerala to withdraw it, as it intended. The State had challenged a Kerala High Court decision to quash charges, invoked against Maoist Leader Roopesh under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).
The Court noted that the 'State is not interested in the present SLP, and seeks to withdraw the petition'. And accordingly allowed the State to withdraw. It was submitted that the High Court's judgment and its interpretation holds valid in the eyes of law, and is the correct interpretation, which would subsequently be applied to all persons. Further that a 'strict view is to be preferred' and hence applied.
In the pertinent matter, it was alleged that Roopesh along with other five accused, who are members of the Communist Party of India (Maoist), a proscribed Organization, visited the houses at Viyyad Tribal Colony, Narippatta Panchayat, in Kerala with guns and distributed pamphlets and propagated party's ideology.
Before the Supreme Court: Earlier before the Supreme Court, the counsel for the State of Kerala submitted that the High Court had committed serious error in not treating Rules 3 & 4 as "directory" in nature. He argued that the delay in the review of evidence by the authority and granting sanction for prosecution by the Government does not in any manner prejudice Roopesh. He further submitted that the delay of six months in granting sanction for Roopesh's prosecution was due to reconstitution of the authority.
In the SLP, it was argued that the High Court has failed to consider that mere use of the word “shall” in the said rules is not sufficient to treat the Rule as mandatory and a legal fiction cannot be stretched beyond the purpose for which it was enacted.
"...High Court failed to appreciate that the word “shall” is not followed by prohibitive or negative words. The legislative intention is not to make the provision absolute therefore the stipulation of time under Rule 3 and 4 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention (Recommendation and Sanction of Prosecution) Rules 2008 is only directory in nature...", the plea adds.
Kerala High Court: The High Court, earlier while allowing the Criminal Revision Petition filed by Roopesh, had held that the stipulation of time under the Rule 3 and 4 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (Recommendation and Sanction of Prosecution) Rules 2008 is mandatory and sacrosanct and it cannot be waived as a mere irregularity under Section 460(e) CrPC or under Section 465 CrPC.
"The government sat over a sanction for six months for framing of UAPA charges violating the time frame of seven days prescribed in the Rules," the High Court had said in its order.
"Amidst the raging controversy as to the retention of offence of sedition in the IPC; which the naysayers categorise as a relic of the colonial past; a symbol of British hegemony and the votaries support in the wake of rising anti-national feelings under the cloak of liberal thought, the Government sat over a sanction for six months, violating the time frame prescribed in the rules," the High Court had noted.
Case title: State of Kerala Vs Roopesh
Please Login or Register
