Right to Life Encompasses Religious Duties, Delhi High Court Affirms While Granting Parole to UAPA Accused

New Delhi – In a significant pronouncement on the expansive nature of fundamental rights, the Delhi High Court has observed that the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right of an individual to observe their religious duties and fulfill personal obligations. The observation underscores the principle that incarceration, while curtailing liberty, does not extinguish the fundamental right to live with human dignity.

The single-judge bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja made this crucial observation while granting two days of custody parole to Shahid Nasir, an undertrial prisoner accused in a case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) by the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

“Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which encompasses within its ambit the right to live with human dignity and to observe one's religious duties and personal obligations,” Justice Dudeja stated in the order.

This ruling reiterates a foundational tenet of constitutional law: that prisoners, whether undertrial or convicted, retain their fundamental rights, which can only be curtailed to the extent necessitated by their lawful detention.

The Factual Matrix: A Plea for Religious Observance

Shahid Nasir, currently lodged in Tihar Jail, had approached the High Court after a trial court rejected his application for a three-day custody parole. The purpose of his plea was to attend and participate in the 'Fathiha' ceremony for his deceased mother-in-law.

The trial court had dismissed his application primarily on two grounds: first, that the death had occurred approximately two years prior, and second, that Nasir had failed to produce any material to demonstrate that his physical presence was indispensable for the ceremony.

In his appeal to the High Court, Nasir argued that his right to perform religious rites is a protected fundamental right under both Article 21 (Right to Life) and Article 25 (Freedom of Religion) of the Constitution. His counsel contended that denying him permission would inflict deep emotional trauma on him and his family, amounting to an unreasonable restriction on his fundamental rights.

NIA's Opposition and National Security Concerns

The National Investigation Agency vehemently opposed the parole application, highlighting the serious nature of the allegations against Nasir. The agency argued that Nasir was not an ordinary accused but was the alleged Treasurer of the Karnataka unit of the Popular Front of India (PFI), an organization banned by the Government of India.

The NIA's chargesheet accuses Nasir and other PFI members of conspiring to raise and channelize funds for carrying out unlawful and terrorist activities. The agency further alleged that the organization was involved in propagating a divisive ideology aimed at destabilizing the Government of India. Given these grave charges, the NIA implicitly suggested that granting any form of release, even supervised, posed a potential risk.

High Court's Jurisprudence: Balancing Dignity and Justice

After carefully considering the arguments from both sides, the High Court chose to prioritize the principles of human dignity and the humane aspect of the justice system. The Court's decision was rooted in a nuanced interpretation of constitutional rights and the specific purpose of custody parole.

Justice Dudeja's order emphasized that a prisoner does not become a non-person and continues to enjoy constitutional protections. "A prisoner, whether convicted or undertrial, continues to enjoy the protection of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, save to the extent curtailed by the fact of lawful detention," the Court observed.

The judgment delved into the philosophy behind custody parole, referencing Rule 1203 of the Delhi Jail Manual, 2018. The Court explained that custody parole is not a suspension of sentence but a temporary, supervised measure designed for specific, pressing circumstances.

“The purpose of custody parole is to allow a prisoner to attend to pressing humanitarian or personal obligations such as funerals, last rites, or significant family functions, under strict supervision of the authorities. It is a temporary measure, humane in character, that ensures a balance between the interests of justice and human dignity,” the Court elucidated.

Analysis and Implications

The High Court's order is significant for several reasons. Firstly, it explicitly links the observance of religious duties to the right to live with human dignity under Article 21, thereby elevating it from solely a matter of religious freedom under Article 25. This interpretation provides a broader and more robust constitutional foundation for such claims, especially for individuals in custody.

Secondly, the decision demonstrates that even in cases involving stringent anti-terror laws like the UAPA, the judiciary will meticulously balance national security concerns with the fundamental rights of the accused. The Court did not dismiss the NIA's concerns but weighed them against other factors. It noted that there was nothing on record to suggest Nasir had previously misused any concession of bail or parole, or that he would pose a security threat if escorted under proper supervision.

Finally, the Court recognized the intrinsic value of religious and cultural obligations. By stating that Nasir's request was "rooted in religious and cultural obligation" and that the duration sought was "minimal," the Court acknowledged the deep personal and familial significance of such ceremonies, which transcends the mere legal question of indispensability.

This judgment serves as an important reminder to trial courts and prosecuting agencies that while the nature of the alleged offence is a critical factor, it cannot be the sole determinant in deciding applications for temporary release for humanitarian or religious purposes. The constitutional commitment to human dignity remains a paramount consideration, ensuring that the punitive and preventative aspects of the justice system are tempered with compassion and respect for fundamental rights.