INTRODUCTION:

When pitted against each other, which one is more important--liberty of a person, or the security of the State? Society has struggled to find a uniform answer to this question in all its stages of civilization. There was a time, when the concern of the security of the State made rulers ignore the question of personal liberty of his subjects. As the civilizational standards started rising, participation of the people in the governance of the State started increasing. The experience taught the people mat ignoring personal liberty, in all cases and in all circumstances, may prove counter-productive inasmuch as it may turn the ruler--whether an individual or a group of persons--into a despot and dictator. Ignoring personal liberty may even slide the State to the brink of tyranny and, eventually, plunge the State into such a catastrophe as could destroy the State itself. The human civilization, therefore, realized that a balance has to be struck between the two. While the concern of the security of the State, in all conditions and always, may not be allowed to override the concerns of civil liberty, me civil liberty must also be subjected to certain restrictions so that the liberty does not become a licence to do anything, which anyone pleases to do, for, civil liberty, beyond a point, may also prove disastrous form State in as much such licencees would tempt to ignore the law and defeat thereby the very rule of law, which is the cherished goal of civil liberty.

2. Fortunately, in India, her Constitution creates a balance between the two conflicting interests--civil liberty and security of the State. All laws, in India, have to, therefore, withstand the test of this constitutional balance. With the spread of terrorism, human civilization has been put under severe strain inasmuch as terrorism is, now, testing our value system. Do we allow the concerns of civil liberty to be ignored in order to escape the horrors of terrorism? Should we learn to forget the values, which we have attached so far to an individual's human rights, even if he is an offender? No wonder that 'terrorism' has become, in the present day world, the greatest threat to human civilization.

3. The concern for security of the State has, therefore, forced the State to make more and more stringent laws. Lest the State also does not become as insensitive as a terrorist, all the acts of the State and the laws, made by the State, must be tested and interpreted on the touchstone of human rights. A successful State administers its laws with meaning and effect. (See National Investigation Agency v. Redaul Hussain Khan, reported in 2010 (3) GLT 302.

3a. In the light of the above observations made on the constitutional guarantee of civil liberty vis-à-vis horrors of terrorism, we, now, come to the present appeal.

BACKGROUND FACTS:

4. The material facts, giving rise to the present appeal, may, in brief, be set out as under:

(i) Some significant amendments have been made in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, (in short, the UA(P) Act) by the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2008, the amendments having come into force on 31.12.2008, which introduced and defined certain terms, such as, terrorist act, terrorist gang, terrorist organization, unlawful association and unlawful activity and made, inter alia, punishable a terrorist act under Section 16 and, by Section17, while the UA(P) Act, as amended by the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2008, made raising of fund for terrorist act punishable, the UA(P) Act also provided punishment for conspiracy, act of abetment, etc, for commission of terrorist act or any act preparatory to the commission of terrorist act This apart, the UA(P) Act made 'membership' of a terrorist gang or terrorist organization punishable offences and also provided punishment for those, who hold or held proceeds of terrorism. The UA(P) Act made, under Section 38, even 'association' by a person w