SC: Suit Alleging Coercion or Undue Influence Cannot be Rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC  ||  Cal HC: Once ED Attachment is Confirmed, Challenge Becomes Academic; PMLA Remedy Must be Pursued  ||  MP HC: Pen-Drive Evidence Cannot be Introduced At a Late Trial Stage Without Proof or Relevance  ||  Calcutta HC: Employee Can't be Stopped From Joining Rival Post-Resignation; Trade Secrets Protected  ||  Calcutta HC: Banks Must Provide Forensic Audit Report Before Calling an Account Fraudulent  ||  Del HC: Woman Cannot Demand Re-Entry to Abandoned Matrimonial Home if Alternate Accommodation Exists  ||  Calcutta HC: Land Acquisition For Industrial Park is Public Purpose; Leasing to Industry is Valid  ||  Patna HC: PwD Recruitment Must Comply With RPwD Act; Executive Resolutions Cannot Override the Law  ||  Madras HC: Individuals Facing Criminal Trial Must Get Court Permission Even to Renew Passports  ||  Calcutta HC: Demolition Orders Cannot be Challenged under Article 226 if a Statutory Appeal Exists    

Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab - (Supreme Court) (11 Mar 1994)

Terrorist laws cannot curtail or erode a person of the fundamental rights

MANU/SC/1597/1994

Criminal

Terrorism, and the outpouring of solidarity in the aftermath, may have a lay understanding today, but an appreciation of laws that enable a response is perhaps more of a challenge. After all, what response and how much of a response relays the degree of unshackling from a relative civility, and may come to define the people that allow it. It was perhaps in introspection that Kartar Singh’s case wondered whether the hunt for anti-terrorist processes did not create a passive terror of its own. Whereas the Court delved into a deep discussion on legislative vires to draft anti-terrorism laws and what terrorism itself might mean, in the littler discussion on mens rea, particularly when one may be accused of abetting, it injected not intention, but awareness of assisting terrorists. It prescribed requirements for confessions, even a “free atmosphere”, obtained before indictment, to comply with fundamental fairness; but was mindful too that a deviation from common criminal jurisprudence could not itself lead to unconstitutionality: the recording of confessional statement before Executive and Special Executive Magistrates, otherwise not allowed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, for instance.

Relevant : The State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar MANU/SC/0033/1952 Ram Manohar Lohia (Dr.) v. State of Bihar MANU/SC/0054/1965 Nathulal v. State of M.P. MANU/SC/0384/1965

Tags : TERRORISM   CONFESSION   MENS REA   ABETMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved