The Superior Court considered that the authorities had delayed the process, denying the petitioner justice.
Prayagraj:
The Allahabad High Court ordered the release of a man arrested for alleged riots and arson and then detained under the strict National Security Law, citing the lack of a “fair hearing” due to “total inaction” by the authorities. This resulted in the violation of the constitutional protections that the petitioner deserved, according to the ruling.
A two-judge tribunal consisting of Judges Pritinker Diwaker and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava ordered the release of petitioner Javed Siddiqui on 7 December, who was arrested in June in the Jaunpur district of eastern Uttar Pradesh.
Releasing him, the court said: “When the law confers extraordinary powers on the executive to detain a person without resorting to the ordinary law of the land and being tried by the courts, that law must be strictly interpreted and the executive must exercise the right power with extreme care. “
Mr. Siddiqui was arrested on June 9 for alleged rioting and arson and the use of caste insults against residents of a Jaunpur shantytown.
Ten days later, a special judge granted bail to Mr. Siddiqui. However, he remained in jail under a strict section of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster Law.
In his appeal to the High Court, Mr. Siddiqui said that the Jaunpur District Magistrate had invoked the strict NSA against him 20 days after the special judge’s decision, allowing his detention to be extended despite obtaining bail. . Following this order of the District Magistrate, Mr. Siddiqui said that he had requested the annulment of his detention and demanded the relevant documents to file an appeal with the court. However, your application was not processed on time and was therefore rejected. Government attorneys denied any deliberate delay in filing their statement.
The High Court, however, found merit in his argument.
“… it is clear from the file that, although there was extraordinary haste in taking action against the petitioner (Mr. Siddiqui), the authorities were reluctant and there was a total inaction on their part that caused an unjustified delay in the processing of the representation … “Said Judges Diwaker and Srivastava in their order.
“This inaction on the part of the authorities certainly resulted in the deprivation of the petitioner’s right to a fair hearing …” said the judge.
The court saw this as a serious violation of established norms and constitutional protection, thus freeing Mr. Siddiqui.
.
