SALHAUNA Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MIZORAM it Indian, soil. Laws and institutions established by and under the Constitution confer the same rights on the people of the other parts of the great Indian Republic. Unfortunately, the Union Territory is having a troubled time and the aid of armed force has been called in by civil authorities to deal With problems of law and order which, albeit, accords well with the recognized norms of counter insurgency jurisprudence common to all legal systems of the world. What is uncommon, however, is that these norms appear in the locale as suspects, in the Constitutional as well as legal perspective. Possibly, because they react, indeed strongly and albeit inevitably, on the effervesced democratic ethos emerging though unevenly in the free society of this free country. It is not unusual, therefore, that Appellant's sad and forceful grievance is this appeal is that he is a victim of a witch hunt. The over -arching question which, therefore, looms large on the forensic Held in this case is whether the special laws enacted to enable the security forces to act in the manner prescribed there under have been violated in this case or, further still, if these laws have taken away or impaired unconstitutionally the rights of the Appellant available to him under the ordinary laws also grown on Indian soil.

(2.) THIS appeal was heard at length on facts but on law within marginal limits as Dr. Sarma, the learned Standing Counsel for the Union Territory of Mizoram submitted that he would need further instructions on certain aspects of the case involving questions of constitutional importance. Mr. S.K. Senapati, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant impressed upon me the need for an expeditious disposal of the matter and in this connection he drew my attention to several orders passed earlier by the Court in this appeal wherein this imperative necessity was duly recognized making it difficult for me to accept Dr. Sarma's prayer for further adjournment of the hearing which has already been much delayed as this Bench was not available for a long time. It is also Mr. Senapati's submission that the contentions based on procedural infractions, constitutional as well as legal, need not be dealt with inasmuch as the case can be disposed of otherwise in favor of the Appellant in view of the fact that ingredient of the offence under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act (for short, the Act) with which the Appellant has been charged have not been proved by the prosecution. This submission of the learned Counsel has weighed with me as the primary duty of the Court, according to me, is to see that delayed disposals we avoided for accuser's benefit. I directed my anxious consideration therefore to the submissions made by both sides on the basis of evidence produced in the case and I have accordingly come to the conclusion that it would be proper to dispose of the matter by merely indicating, but not dealing with the effect of procedural infractions, for the reason that it is necessary also for this Court acting as a constitutional guardian of liberty of citizens to bring home to the law -enforcement agencies operating in the Union Territory the importance of due compliance with the procedures prescribed by law in the course of investigation to give life and meaning to, the constitutional and legal safeguards available to an accused under the laws and Constitution of India. Law -makers have taken due care to enact adequate counter insurgency measures and the Fundamental Duties constitutionally mandate the rulers and the ruled alike to conduct themselves appropriately to ensure proper administration thereof with due care and caution so that the prescribed limits are not over stepped by either.

(3.) * * * *