The Supreme Court on Thursday said the Constitution would prevail over all other laws and regulations, making it clear that constitutional provisions would take precedence in case of any conflict with special laws such as the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and A S Chandurkar reiterated that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right and cannot be curtailed by any law. It also said prolonged delay in trial could be a ground for granting bail.
The bench disagreed with an earlier Supreme Court ruling which held that, under special statutes such as the NDPS Act, an accused’s right to a speedy trial under Article 21 must be exercised within the limits of Section 37, which lays down stringent bail conditions. The earlier ruling had said prolonged delay alone could not override those conditions.
Fundamental Rights Cannot Be Diluted By Special Laws
The bench said constitutional rights must remain central to the interpretation of laws, rather than allowing statutory provisions to determine the scope of fundamental rights.
“First and foremost, the rights conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution are not only constitutional rights. These are fundamental rights. Right to life and liberty as enshrined in Article 21 are at the core of our constitutional jurisprudence. These fundamental rights cannot be tinkered with so lightly, not even under the special statutes,” the court said.
It further observed that several earlier Supreme Court judgments had reiterated that when Article 21 is violated, the restrictions imposed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act or similar provisions under other special laws must give way.
Differences Within Supreme Court
The latest observations assume significance amid differences within the Supreme Court over whether prolonged delays in trials can justify bail in cases registered under the PMLA, NDPS Act and UAPA.
Contradictory orders have been passed on whether the fundamental right to a speedy trial can take precedence over the stringent bail conditions prescribed under these laws. While one bench held that delay in trial could not be a ground for granting bail in PMLA and UAPA cases, other benches have taken differing positions.
The issue is now before a larger bench for consideration.
