Independent review required for prosecution sanction under UAPA ensures non-arbitrary state actions; challenges must be raised promptly to avoid delays in legal proceedings.

CAV ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA)

Accused Nos.1, 3, 12, 16, and 17 are before this Court in WP No.14071/2021, challenging the sanction order dated 17.10.2013 issued by respondent No.3 and the notification dated 20.05.2013, which is in continuation of the notification dated 30.07.2010, wherein the Government of Karnataka had appointed the ‘Director of Prosecutions and Government Litigations, Bangalore’ as ‘Authority’ in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (2) of Section 45 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘ UAPA ’ for short) read with clause (b) of Sub-Rule 2 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (Recommendation and Sanction of Prosecution) Rules, 2008 (referred to as ‘Rules, 2008’ for short) and by notification dated 20.05.2013, appointed ‘Additional Law Secretary, Law Department, Government of Karnataka’ as a ‘Co-member/Joint Authority’.

2. By an order dated 10.03.2022, petitioner Nos.1, 4 and 5 were deleted from the array of the parties, hence the writ petition survives only in respect of petitioner Nos.2 and 3/accused 3 and 12.

3. Accused Nos.8 to 10, 16 and 18 are before this Court in WP No.18715/2021 seeking for the following prayers:

“a) Issue writ of qua warranto and certiorari against the Respondent no.3 to establish his status as independent authority under the section 45(2) of UAPA as per letter and spirit of act, consequently declare that respondent no.3 is not an independent authority as the requirement of section 45(2) of UAPA .

b) Set aside the Impugned sanction Order No.OE/184/MOHIB/2013(2) Dated 05/05/2014 issued by the respondent no.2 asAnnexure D which is issued on the recommendation of Respondent no.3, which is not a proper independent review authority under section 45(2)of UAPA in Crime no.118/2013 c) Consequently quash the cognizance order dated 23/10/2013 taken by the Magistrate court 1^st ACMM, at Bangalore in connection of crime no.118/2013 Vyalikaval Police Station same at Annexure E “presently” pending in the files of 49^th Addl. City Civil and Session Judge at Bangalore as SC no.1347/2016 c/w SC no.381/2015 under section 120(B), 121, 121A, 123, 307, 332, 435, 201 of IPC, 3,4,5,6 of Indian Explosive Substance Act, 4 of Prevention of damage to public property act and section 11,16,17,18,19 and 20 of UA(P)A act, wherein these petitioner are arrayed as Accused no.8,9,10,16 and 18 respectively.

d) Pass any other order by seeing the fact and circumstance of the case”

4. Challenge in these writ petitions is to the appointment of ‘Director of Prosecutions and Government Litigations, Bangalore’ as ‘Authority’ and to the sanction order issued by the Principal Secretary, Administrative Department on the recommendation of the Authority, contending that the recommendation of the Authority is not in consonance with Section 4 5 of the UAPA .

5. Brief facts necessary for consideration of the present writ petitions, shorn of unnecessary details are: On 17.04.2013, a blast took place in Malleshwaram near BJP Office. FIR was registered at Vyalikaval Police Station in Crime No.118/2013 against unknown persons. The investigation was transferred to the CCB Branch. During investigation the police arrested several accused persons and implicated them of committing offences punishable under Sections 120B , 121, 121A, 123, 307, 332, 435, 201 of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 , 4, 5 and 6 of the Indi