Can a conviction under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) stand if the mandatory prior approvals were not properly obtained? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Seeni Nainar Mohammed vs. State. The court overturned the convictions, emphasizing the importance of strict adherence to legal procedures. This case highlights the necessity of proper sanctions before prosecuting individuals under TADA.
LEGAL ISSUE: Whether convictions under TADA can be upheld if prior approvals were not obtained as per Section 20-A of TADA.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA)
Case Name: Seeni Nainar Mohammed vs. State
Judgment Date: 27 April 2017
Judges: Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J., Rohinton Fali Nariman, J.
Case Background
The case revolves around the murder of Rajagopalan, the President of the Hindu Munnani Association. On October 10, 1994, at approximately 6:30 a.m., six individuals, including Sahul Hameed (A-1), Raja Hussain (A-2), and Seeni Nainar Mohammed (A-6), allegedly conspired to kill Rajagopalan. The accused went to Rajagopalan’s house. While Rajagopalan was reading the newspaper, A-1 grabbed him from behind, and A-3 and A-4 stabbed him. A-5 threatened the public with a sickle. Rajagopalan died from his injuries.
Krishnaveni (PW-1), Rajagopalan’s wife, witnessed the aftermath. She reported the incident to the police. The police registered a First Information Report (FIR) under Sections 147, 148, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case was later transferred to the CBCID, and then to the CBI, and charges under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) were added.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| October 10, 1994, 6:30 AM | Rajagopalan murdered at his residence. |
| October 10, 1994, 7:30 AM | FIR registered at Thilagar Ground Police Station, Madurai. |
| October 25, 1994 | Confession of A-6 recorded. |
| July 1996 | Case transferred to CBI. |
| September 13, 1997 | DSP of CBI sought sanction for prosecution under TADA. |
| September 16, 1997 | Sanction granted for prosecution against A-1 to A-5 under TADA. |
| September 16, 1998 | Sanction granted for prosecution against A-6 under TADA. |
| September 8, 2011 | Designated Court convicted all accused under TADA. |
| April 27, 2017 | Supreme Court quashed the TADA convictions. |
Course of Proceedings
Initially, the case was registered under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Subsequently, the case was transferred to the CBCID and then to the CBI. The investigating officers added charges under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA). The Designated Court for TADA Cases convicted all the accused. The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.
Legal Framework
The primary legal provision in question is Section 20-A of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA). This section mandates that:
- “No information about the commission of an offence under this Act shall be recorded by the police without the prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police.”
- “No court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act without the previous sanction of the Inspector-General of Police, or as the case may be, the Commissioner of Police.”
The Supreme Court emphasized that these provisions are mandatory. They require strict adherence to ensure that the stringent provisions of TADA are not misused. The court also referred to Section 3(1) of TADA, which defines a “terrorist act” as an act done with the intention to overawe the government or create terror in the minds of people.
Arguments
Appellants’ Arguments:
- The prior approvals required under Section 20-A of TADA were not obtained correctly. The District Superintendent of Police (PW-26) and the Inspector-General of Police (PW-28) did not apply their minds to the relevant records before granting approval.
- The sanctioning authority (PW-28) did not understand Tamil and did not review all the documents, which were in Tamil.
- The confessions of A-1 and A-6 were not voluntary. They were contradictory, and not recorded in a free atmosphere.
- The eye-witnesses were not reliable.
- The test identification parade was a farce because the accused’s pictures had already been published in the newspaper.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The prosecution argued that the sanction for prosecution was valid.
- The prosecution relied on the confessions of the accused, the eye-witness testimonies, and the recovery of evidence.
- The prosecution argued that the accused had a motive to commit the murder. The deceased had organized Vinayaga Chaturthi celebrations and criticized Muslims.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Validity of Sanction | Prior approvals under Section 20-A of TADA not properly obtained. | Appellants |
| Sanctioning authority did not apply mind to relevant records. | Appellants | |
| Sanctioning authority did not understand Tamil and review all documents. | Appellants | |
| Sanction for prosecution was valid. | Respondent | |
| Reliability of Evidence | Confessions of A-1 and A-6 were not voluntary and contradictory. | Appellants |
| Eye-witnesses were unreliable. | Appellants | |
| Test identification parade was a farce. | Appellants | |
| Confessions of the accused, eye-witness testimonies, and recovery of evidence are reliable. | Respondent | |
| Motive | Accused had a motive due to deceased’s activities and criticism of Muslims. | Respondent |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following key issue:
- Whether the approval in the present case can be said to be sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 20-A of TADA.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the approval in the present case can be said to be sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 20-A of TADA. | No, the approvals were not valid. | The Sanctioning Authority did not apply his mind to the records in its entirety. The Sanctioning Authority did not know Tamil and did not go through the entire records which were in Tamil. The prior approval was granted mechanically. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered | Relevance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hussein Ghadially @ M.H.G.A Shaikh & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, (2014) 8 SCC 425 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Emphasized that Section 20-A of TADA forbids recording information without prior approval. |
| Kalpnath Rai Vs. State (Through CBI) , (1997) 8 SCC 732 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Explained the requirements of Section 3(1) of TADA, defining a “terrorist act.” |
| Kartar Singh Vs State of Punjab , 1994 (3) SCC 569 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Discussed the elements of a “terrorist act” and the importance of intention, action, and consequence. |
| Girdhari Parmanand Vadhava Vs. State of Maharashtra , (1996) 11 SCC 179 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Stated that a crime, even if brutal, does not automatically constitute a “terrorist activity.” |
| Hitendra Vishnu Thakur & Ors. Vs. State Of Maharashtra & Ors. , (1994) 4 SCC 602 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Explained the concept of “terrorism” and its distinction from ordinary crime. |
| Ashrafkhan alias Babu Munnekhan Pathan & Anr. Vs. State of Guajrat, (2012) 11 SCC 606 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Held that non-compliance with Section 20-A(1) of TADA is a defect that goes to the root of the matter. |
| Suresh Chandra Bahri Vs. State of Bihar , 1995 Supp (1) SCC 80 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Discussed the importance of a fair test identification parade. |
| State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu , (2005) 11 SCC 600 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Explained the meaning and reliability of confessions. |
| Pakala Narayana Swami vs. Emperor, AIR 1939 PC 47 | Privy Council | Followed | Explained the meaning of a confession. |
| Bharat vs. State of U.P. [1971 (3) SCC 950] | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Discussed the approach to be taken for a retracted confession. |
| Subramania Gounden v. The State of Madras(1958 SCR 428) | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Discussed the approach to be taken for a retracted confession. |
| Section 20-A, Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 | Statute | Explained | Mandates prior approval for recording information and taking cognizance of offences under TADA. |
| Section 3(1), Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 | Statute | Explained | Defines a “terrorist act.” |
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the prior approvals under Section 20-A of TADA were invalid. The court noted that the sanctioning authority did not apply his mind to the records and did not understand Tamil. The court also found that the confessions of A-1 and A-6 were not voluntary. The test identification parade was deemed a farce. Therefore, the court quashed the convictions under TADA.
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Prior approvals under Section 20-A of TADA were not properly obtained. | Accepted. The court found that the approvals were invalid due to non-application of mind by the sanctioning authorities. |
| The confessions of A-1 and A-6 were not voluntary. | Accepted. The court held that the confessions were involuntary and could not be the basis of conviction. |
| The eye-witnesses were not reliable. | The court did not express a clear opinion on this but noted that PW-1 was never called for identification. |
| The test identification parade was a farce. | Accepted. The court agreed that the test identification parade was a farce due to prior publication of the accused’s pictures in the newspaper. |
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Hussein Ghadially @ M.H.G.A Shaikh & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, (2014) 8 SCC 425 | Cited to emphasize the mandatory nature of prior approval under Section 20-A of TADA. |
| Kalpnath Rai Vs. State (Through CBI) , (1997) 8 SCC 732 | Cited to explain the definition of a “terrorist act” under Section 3(1) of TADA. |
| Kartar Singh Vs State of Punjab , 1994 (3) SCC 569 | Cited to discuss the elements of a “terrorist act” and the importance of intention, action, and consequence. |
| Girdhari Parmanand Vadhava Vs. State of Maharashtra , (1996) 11 SCC 179 | Cited to clarify that a crime, even if brutal, does not automatically constitute a “terrorist activity.” |
| Hitendra Vishnu Thakur & Ors. Vs. State Of Maharashtra & Ors. , (1994) 4 SCC 602 | Cited to explain the concept of “terrorism” and its distinction from ordinary crime. |
| Ashrafkhan alias Babu Munnekhan Pathan & Anr. Vs. State of Guajrat, (2012) 11 SCC 606 | Cited to emphasize that non-compliance with Section 20-A(1) of TADA is a defect that goes to the root of the matter. |
| Suresh Chandra Bahri Vs. State of Bihar , 1995 Supp (1) SCC 80 | Cited to highlight the importance of a fair test identification parade. |
| State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu , (2005) 11 SCC 600 | Cited to explain the meaning and reliability of confessions. |
| Pakala Narayana Swami vs. Emperor, AIR 1939 PC 47 | Cited to explain the meaning of a confession. |
| Bharat vs. State of U.P. [1971 (3) SCC 950] | Cited to discuss the approach to be taken for a retracted confession. |
| Subramania Gounden v. The State of Madras(1958 SCR 428) | Cited to discuss the approach to be taken for a retracted confession. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the procedural lapses in obtaining prior approvals under TADA. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 20-A of TADA. The non-application of mind by the sanctioning authorities and the involuntary nature of the confessions were key factors in the court’s decision to quash the convictions. The court also highlighted that the prosecution failed to prove that the murder was committed with the intention to create terror, which is a key element for invoking TADA.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Invalidity of prior approvals under Section 20-A of TADA | 40% |
| Non-application of mind by sanctioning authorities | 30% |
| Involuntary nature of confessions | 20% |
| Failure to prove intention to create terror | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning
The court’s reasoning was based on a step-by-step analysis of the legal requirements and the facts of the case. The court emphasized that the stringent provisions of TADA must be applied strictly and that any deviation from the mandatory procedures would vitiate the proceedings. The court also highlighted that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of a “terrorist act” as defined under Section 3(1) of TADA.
The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:
- “A careful reading of the above leaves no manner of doubt that the provision starts with a non obstante clause and is couched in negative phraseology. It forbids recording of information about the commission of offences under TADA by the Police without the prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police.”
- “Confessions are considered highly reliable because no rational person would make admission against his interest unless prompted by his conscience to tell the truth. ‘Deliberate and voluntary confessions of guilt, if clearly proved are among the most effectual proofs in law’.”
- “The facts of the case might induce mournful reflection how an attempt by the investigating agency charged with the duty of preventing terrorism and securing conviction has been frustrated by what is popularly called a technical error.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench unanimously agreed that the convictions were not sustainable due to the procedural lapses.
Key Takeaways
- Prior approvals under Section 20-A of TADA are mandatory and must be obtained by proper application of mind by the sanctioning authority.
- Confessions obtained in police custody are not considered voluntary and cannot be the sole basis of conviction.
- Test identification parades must be conducted fairly and without any prior exposure of the accused to the witnesses.
- The prosecution must prove all the essential ingredients of a “terrorist act” to invoke the provisions of TADA.
- The Supreme Court emphasized that the gravity of the evil of terrorism cannot justify a deviation from the due process of law.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the appellants be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that prior approvals under Section 20-A of TADA are mandatory and must be obtained by proper application of mind by the sanctioning authority. This case reinforces the importance of strict compliance with legal procedures, especially in cases involving stringent laws like TADA. It also clarifies that a crime, even if brutal, does not automatically constitute a “terrorist activity.” The judgment also reiterates the importance of voluntary confessions and fair test identification parades.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court quashed the convictions under TADA in Seeni Nainar Mohammed vs. State due to the invalidity of the prior approvals, the involuntary nature of the confessions, and the flawed test identification parade. This judgment highlights the importance of strict adherence to legal procedures and the need for proper application of mind by sanctioning authorities before invoking stringent laws like TADA.
Source: Seeni Nainar Mohammed vs. State