Back
UAPA Accused Cannot Claim After 90 Days Under BNSS:
The has ruled that an accused under the cannot claim merely after 90 days, even though the has replaced the . A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan held that the reference to in is "," meaning Section 187 BNSS now applies, and the provision allowing detention up to 180 days remains valid.
The Background: Explosion at Lal Qila Metro Station
The case arose from a explosion at Gate No. 4 of the Lal Qila Metro Station in Delhi, allegedly caused by a vehicle-borne IED. The appellant, Jasir Bilal Wani @ Danish, was arrested on from the NIA camp office in Srinagar and booked under UAPA, the , and the .
While in custody, the moved two applications seeking extension of the investigation period beyond the statutory 90 days—first up to 135 days, then up to 180 days. Both were allowed by the trial court. The appellant subsequently filed an application for after 90 days, which was dismissed on . Aggrieved, he approached the High Court.
A Legal Conundrum: 90 Days or 180?
The central legal question was whether, after the repeal of the CrPC and the enactment of the BNSS in (effective ), a UAPA accused is entitled to after 90 days or after 180 days. modifies Section 167 of the CrPC, extending the maximum detention period to 180 days. However, Section 43D still refers only to Section 167 of the CrPC, which has been repealed.
The appellant argued that since the UAPA provision does not mention , the earlier 90-day timeline should apply. The NIA countered that the reference to Section 167 is ""—a dynamic reference that automatically incorporates the corresponding new provision.
: The Crucial Distinction
The court delved into the distinction between "" and "," drawing on the ’s decision in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Union of India (1979) and the ’s ruling in Nagani Akram Mohammad Shafi v. Union of India (2025), which was affirmed by the .
The Bench explained that where a provision is merely referred to and not bodily lifted into another statute,
applies. This provision mandates that references to a repealed enactment shall be construed as references to the re-enacted provision.
"By applying Section 8 of the
along with the principle of ‘
’, it becomes clear that in the case of
, reference to
has to be construed as reference to
,"
the court observed.
Legislative Intent Cannot Be Ignored
The court emphasized that the purpose of the UAPA’s special detention regime must be preserved.
"The purpose of increasing the detention period to 180 days in the UAPA, is clearly to provide longer period of detention for heinous offences such as terrorism. While answering the questions raised herein, the said intention cannot be forgotten,"
the judgment stated. It added that
"by the mere enactment of BNSS the said intention of the Legislature cannot be defeated."
The court also noted that Section 4 of both the CrPC and BNSS make it clear that offences under special laws are to be investigated and tried in accordance with those special laws. The UAPA, being a special enactment, prevails over the general procedural code.
Belated Challenge and
The court also found that the appellant had lost the right to challenge the extension orders by failing to do so promptly. The first extension was granted on , and was not immediately challenged. The ’s order in
State of Uttarakhand v. Javed Siddiqui
(
) was cited, holding that an accused who does not challenge extension orders loses the right to
due to
.
"Thus, by the time the appellant approached the High Court, they had lost the right to seek
by their
,"
the Bench noted.
Key Observations from the Judgment
"By applying Section 8 of the along with the principle of ‘ ’, it becomes clear that in the case of , reference to has to be construed as reference to . The would therefore apply and the period of detention can be extended upto 180 days."
"The purpose of increasing the detention period to 180 days in the UAPA, is clearly to provide longer period of detention for heinous offences such as terrorism. While answering the questions raised herein, the said intention cannot be forgotten."
"Thus, by the mere enactment of BNSS the said intention of the Legislature cannot be defeated."
"Thus, in the opinion of this Court, that ship has sailed."(regarding the belated challenge to extension orders)
The Verdict
The dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant was not entitled to after 90 days. The court clarified that while the right to had been lost, the appellant remained free to pursue any other legal remedies available under the law. The charge-sheet having been filed on , the matter will now proceed to trial.
