Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard an appeal against the order of the Additional Designated Judge, Ahmedabad, which had rejected the appellant's application to drop charges under Sections 3 and 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA) in Terrorist Criminal Case No. 3/96 arising out of I.C.R. No. 4/3 of police station Rakhiyal, District Ahmedabad. The appellant contended that there was non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 20A of TADA, which requires prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police before recording information under the Act. The prosecution argued that the Commissioner of Police was present and gave oral permission under Section 20A(1) on the date of investigation. The respondent's counsel placed two documents: a letter from the ACP Crime Branch to the Deputy Commissioner of Police requesting approval to invoke TADA provisions, and a permission letter granted by Mr. A.K. Surolia, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, Ahmedabad. The Court held that Section 20A(1) must be strictly construed, and the approval must be in writing to ensure transparency and prevent subsequent subterfuge by introducing oral permission. The Court further held that even oral permission had not been granted, as the documentary evidence showed that permission was sought from and granted by a subordinate authority, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, rather than the Commissioner of Police. Consequently, the mandatory provisions of Section 20A(1) were not complied with, and the charges under Sections 3 and 5 of TADA could not be sustained. The Court quashed the invocation of TADA provisions but clarified that the concerned authority could proceed in accordance with law as indicated in paragraph 16 of the decision in Anirudhsinhji's case. The question whether a case under Sections 3 and 5 of TADA was made out on merits was left open for consideration at the appropriate stage. The appeal was accordingly disposed of.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Prior Approval for Recording Information under TADA - Mandatory Compliance - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 20A(1) - The Supreme Court held that prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police under Section 20A(1) must be in writing and must be obtained before invoking TADA provisions. Oral permission cannot be accepted due to serious consequences of TADA charges. In this case, documentary evidence showed that permission was sought from and granted by a Deputy Commissioner of Police, a subordinate authority, which did not satisfy the requirement. The Court quashed invocation of Sections 3 and 5 of TADA and left open proceeding in accordance with law as per paragraph 16 of Anirudhsinhji's case. Held that non-compliance with mandatory Section 20A(1) vitiates TADA proceedings. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether prior approval under Section 20A(1) of TADA must be in writing and by the specified authority, and whether oral permission or permission by a subordinate authority can satisfy the mandatory requirement.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; invocation of Sections 3 and 5 of TADA quashed for non-compliance of Section 20A(1). Concerned authority may proceed in accordance with law as indicated in paragraph 16 of Anirudhsinhji's case.
Law Points
- Section 20A(1) of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act
- 1987 is mandatory and requires prior approval in writing by the District Superintendent of Police before recording information under the Act
- oral permission cannot satisfy the requirement
- permission by an authority subordinate to the specified authority is invalid
- non-compliance vitiates invocation of TADA provisions.
