A) Abstract / Headnote

The Supreme Court in Fuleshwar Gope v. Union of India & Ors. analyzed the procedural and substantive aspects concerning the validity of a sanction order under Section 45(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The case explored whether procedural violations, specifically the statutory timelines prescribed under Rules 3 and 4 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (Recommendation & Sanction of Prosecution) Rules, 2008, vitiate criminal proceedings. It also deliberated on whether the accused’s role in a company allegedly involved in unlawful activities was sufficient to implicate him under UAPA. The Court ultimately concluded that challenges to sanctions must ordinarily be raised before the trial court. Further, procedural irregularities in sanctioning are insufficient to stall proceedings if the sanctioning authority demonstrated sufficient application of mind.

Keywords: Validity of Sanction Order, UAPA, Procedural Irregularities, Statutory Timelines, Independent Review.

B) Case Details

i. Judgment Cause Title:
Fuleshwar Gope v. Union of India & Ors.

ii. Case Number:
Criminal Appeal No. 3923 of 2024

iii. Judgment Date:
23 September 2024

iv. Court:
Supreme Court of India

v. Quorum:
Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol

vi. Author:
Justice Sanjay Karol

vii. Citation:
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 315; 2024 INSC 718

viii. Legal Provisions Involved:

• Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 17, 18, 21, 22, 22A, and 45(2)
• Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (Recommendation & Sanction of Prosecution) Rules, 2008 – Rules 3 and 4
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 218-222

ix. Judgments Overruled (if any):
None.

x. Related Law Subjects:
Criminal Law, Anti-Terrorism Law, Procedural Law.

C) Introduction and Background of Judgment

This case emerged from a criminal appeal by Fuleshwar Gope (A-17) challenging his prosecution under UAPA. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) charged him with conspiring with Dinesh Gope (A-6), the chief of the People’s Liberation Front of India (PLFI), a proscribed terrorist organization, to channel funds for PLFI activities. The appellant sought to quash the sanction order under Section 45(2) of UAPA, alleging procedural lapses, lack of independent review, and absence of mens rea.

D) Facts of the Case

1. Background Allegations:
   Fuleshwar Gope, a director of M/s Shiv Shakti Samridhi Infra Pvt. Ltd., was accused of aiding PLFI by channeling extorted funds through the company’s bank accounts.

2. Initial Proceedings:
   An FIR was registered in 2016 against Dinesh Gope (A-6) for depositing demonetized currency worth ₹25.83 lakh in a bank. Subsequent investigations implicated Fuleshwar Gope.

3. Sanctions and Charges:

   • A suo motu sanction was issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs on July 22, 2020, against seven accused, including Fuleshwar Gope.
   • The NIA filed supplementary chargesheets implicating him under various UAPA provisions.

4. Procedural Challenges:
   Fuleshwar Gope challenged the validity of the sanction order, citing delayed timelines, lack of independent review, and inadequate application of mind.

E) Legal Issues Raised

1. Whether the validity of a sanction order under Section 45(2) of UAPA can be challenged at any stage of the proceedings?
2. Whether procedural lapses, such as violations of statutory timelines under Rules 3 and 4 of the 2008 Rules, vitiate the sanction?
3. Whether the accused’s association with PLFI through corporate mechanisms satisfies the mens rea requirement under UAPA?
4. Whether statutory exemptions under Section 22A of UAPA apply to the appellant?

F) Petitioner/Appellant’s Arguments

i. Procedural Violations:
The appellant argued that the timelines prescribed under Rules 3 and 4 of the 2008 Rules were violated, rendering the sanction invalid. The recommendations and approvals were allegedly granted mechanically without sufficient application of mind.

ii. Independent Review Absent:
The appellant alleged that the sanctioning authority failed to conduct an independent review of the evidence as required under Section 45(2) of UAPA.

iii. Mens Rea and Identity Theft:
The appellant claimed that he lacked criminal intent (mens rea) and was unaware of the unlawful use of his company. Further, his identity was allegedly misused by other accused.

iv. Challenge at Any Stage:
Relying on precedents, the appellant contended that the validity of sanction orders can be questioned at any stage, including appellate proceedings.

G) Respondent’s Arguments

i. Procedural Adherence:
The government argued that the sanction order adhered to the prescribed timelines. It was issued based on the independent review by a designated authority comprising a retired High Court judge and a retired Law Secretary.

ii. Continuous Transaction Doctrine:
The prosecution argued that the accused’s activities were part of an ongoing criminal conspiracy linked to PLFI, making procedural lapses inconsequential to the case.

iii. Mens Rea Established:
The respondent emphasized that the appellant’s role as a director in a company used for laundering funds demonstrated sufficient criminal intent.

iv. Trial at Advanced Stage:
Given the advanced stage of trial, the respondent contended that entertaining the challenge would hinder judicial proceedings.

H) Judgment

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. Timelines and Procedural Compliance:
   The Court held that while procedural compliance is critical, minor deviations in timelines under Rules 3 and 4 of the 2008 Rules do not invalidate a sanction, provided substantial adherence is demonstrated.

2. Independent Review Requirement:
   The Court clarified that the requirement of independent review under Section 45(2) is satisfied if the authority examines the evidence comprehensively. Mere brevity in decision-making does not imply lack of application of mind.

3. Challenge at Trial Stage:
   Challenges to the validity of sanction orders must ordinarily be raised at the trial stage unless egregious violations are evident.

4. Mens Rea and Statutory Exemptions:
   The Court left the determination of mens rea and applicability of Section 22A exemptions to the trial court.

b. Obiter Dicta (if any):

The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards under UAPA to prevent misuse of stringent anti-terror laws.

c. Guidelines (if any):

1. Statutory timelines under UAPA must be observed strictly to safeguard rights of the accused.
2. Independent review must be detailed enough to withstand judicial scrutiny.

I) Conclusion & Comments

The judgment underscores the delicate balance between procedural safeguards and the overarching goal of combating terrorism. While the Court upheld the validity of the sanction, it highlighted the necessity for stricter procedural adherence. The reliance on trial courts for determining factual issues reflects a cautious approach to ensuring justice.

J) References

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand (2019) 17 SCC 326
2. Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 5 SCC 424
3. State of Karnataka v. S. Subbegowda (2023 SCC OnLine SC 911)

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
2. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (Recommendation & Sanction of Prosecution) Rules, 2008
3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973