NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court last week refused bail to actor Sanjay Dutt, arrested under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) for his alleged role in the March 1993 Bombay blast cases but indicated that the court will refer the case to a Constitution Bench in view of the wide ramifications.
The Court said sanjay’s release all this stage without clear interpretation of TADA provisions would have far reaching consequences in pending cases of thousands of other detainees in the country.
A Division Bench comprising Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy and Justice N.P. Singh turned down the cine star’s plea for release from prison after hearing three hours of arguments by Ram Jethmalani his counsel
. The Court said the actor could prefer moving a bail application before the Constitution Bench for consideration. The Court will also indicate in its August 18 order an early date for the constitution of the larger bench in view of the urgency of the matter.
The Division Bench said it was referring the matter to a Constitution Bench.
The reference is being made following submissions by senior counsel Jethmalani that under Section 5 as it stood on August 20 would mean that mere possession of arms in a militant, the charge that the person was indulging in militant even though he may not have a motive.
This Jothmalani said would amount to a draconian measure impinging on the personal liberty of individuals.
The judges said they had decided {0 refer interpretation of Section 914) (B)(B) also for fresh interpretation because under the present TADA amended as on July 1994, any detainee languishing in jail under the Act would be entitled to ‘automatic ball if his period of remand had not been extended after 180 as compared to one year previously.
The judges said the Constitution Bench will have to deal with the issue whether the amendment would have retrospective effect since the inception of TADA and whether it would also apply to the case of the cine star who is seeking bail on the ground that he had been held for more than the statutory period.
Earlier, Jethmalani told a packed court number nine that his client’s fear was that once he had been put On a joint trial with other accused with an omnibus charge of conspiracy, the consequences on his career as a film actor would suffer tremendously as the public would assume that birds of 3 feather flock together.
Jethmalani said when the designated court at Bombay had rejected his bail plea and ordered his arrest in July last the judge had not said a word to suggest that the actor knew of the Bombay blast conspiracy or that he had joined such a conspiracy. “Your lordships when the judge has not been able to record a finding of conspiracy against me and when all evidence against me was being taken from the confessions of co-accused, in fairness this Court should clear me of national,” Jethmalani told the court.
Justice Reddy said, “Mr. Jethmalani how can we say at this stage whether your client is guilty or not, we can only note what you say about the designated Court not having recorded a finding of guilt against your client.
Article extracted from this publication >> August 26, 1994
