Can non-citizen claim Indian rights? Why Kerala High Court freed jailed LTTE member after 4 years without trial

“The right to speedy trial enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution is applicable to all persons and is not restricted to citizens of this country,” the court said, referring to the Supreme Court verdict on February 24.

‘Article 21 for also people not citizen of country ‘

• The meaning of the word ‘life’ in Article 21 cannot be narrowed down and it is available not only to every citizen of the country, but also to a person, who may not be a citizen of the country.
• Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.
• Even the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not come in the way when the court deals with the liberty of a person, because more the rigour, the quicker the adjudication ought to be.
• The appellant is undergoing incarceration for a period of more than four years and four months.
• The report received from the trial court shows that the trial is not likely to commence and end in near future.
• We are of the considered view that this is a fit case where the appellant can be granted the relief as sought for by him.

• The constitutional right of speedy trial will have precedence over the strict provisions such as Sections 43-D(5) and also 43-D(7) of the UA(P) Act, and by passage of time, the effect of these statutory provisions will have to be diluted to give way to protect the constitutional rights.
• The contention of the respondent that Section 43-D(7) of the UA(P) Act places a complete embargo on this court in granting bail to the appellant, does not have any legs to stand.
• If the state or any prosecuting agency, including the court concerned, has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, then the state or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious.

Bail conditions imposed

• While allowing the appeal and setting aside the special court’s April 22, 2024 order denying bail, the high court imposed stringent safeguards.
• These include a bail bond of Rs 1 lakh with two solvent sureties.
• Prior permission required to leave Kerala.
• Surrender of passport.
• Mandatory disclosure and updating of residential addresses.
• Use of only one mobile number, accessible at all times.

• Appearance before the local station house officer on first and third Saturdays.
• No tampering with evidence or contact with witnesses.
• No involvement in similar offences.
• The prosecution has been granted liberty to seek cancellation of bail in case of violation of conditions.

Allegations: LTTE revival through drugs, arms

• The appellant, Satkunam alias Sabesan, 49, a Sri Lankan citizen residing in Chennai as a refugee, is the ninth accused in a case registered in 2021 before the NIA Court, Ernakulam.
• According to the prosecution, he was an armed cadre of the LTTE and had served in the “outer security wing” of Prabhakaran.
• The National Investigation Agency (NIA) alleged that he later joined hands with other accused to revive the banned outfit in India and Sri Lanka.

• The chargesheet accuses him of conspiring to wage war against Sri Lanka, illicit trafficking of 300.323 kg of heroin, procuring five Type-56 rifles and 1,000 rounds of 9 mm ammunition, raising funds through narcotics trade and hawala channels and investing proceeds in movable and immovable properties in Tamil Nadu.
• He was charged under various provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the NDPS Act, the Arms Act and the IPC.
• The prosecution also contended that he had entered India illegally and had prior criminal antecedents, including a conviction in a drug trafficking case.

Four years in jail, trial yet to begin

• The accused has been in custody since October 5, 2021.
• A status report submitted by the special court revealed that the trial is unlikely to begin before January 2027 and, if commenced then, may conclude only by December 2027.
• The case involves 209 witnesses and 446 documents.
• The bench noted that the appellant had already undergone more than four years and four months of incarceration, with no immediate prospect of trial.