NCLAT: Can’t Dismiss Restoration App. if Filed in 30 Days from Date of Dismissal of Original App.  ||  Delhi HC: Communication between Parties through Whatsapp Constitute Valid Agreement  ||  Delhi HC Seeks Response from Govt. Over Penalties on Petrol Pumps Supplying Fuel to Old Vehicles  ||  Centre Notifies "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Rules, 2025"  ||  Del. HC: Can’t Reject TM Owner’s Claim Merely because Defendant Could have Sought Removal of Mark  ||  Bombay HC: Cannot Treat Sole Director of OPC, Parallelly with Separate Legal Entity  ||  Delhi HC: Can Apply 'Family of Marks' Concept to Injunct Specific Marks  ||  HP HC: Can’t Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree for Mere Irregularity  ||  Cal. HC: Order by HC Bench Not Conferred With Determination by Roster is Void  ||  Calcutta HC: Purchase Order Including Arbitration Agreement to Prevail Over Tax Invoice Lacking it    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved