Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case

"In Matters of National Security and Mass Casualty, Liberty Cannot Be Sole Determinant for Bail", On December 11, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant verdict in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dayamoy Mahato & Ors., addressing the bail granted to several accused in the 2010 Jnaneshwari Express derailment case, which claimed 148 lives. A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh allowed the CBI's appeals in part, setting aside the reasoning adopted by the Calcutta High Court under Section 436-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and Article 21 of the Constitution, while declining to cancel the bail due to the passage of time and absence of misuse of liberty.

The ruling sets a precedent on the interpretation of liberty under Article 21 vis-à-vis offences involving mass casualties and terrorism under special statutes like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), which incorporate a reverse burden of proof.

“Section 436-A Does Not Apply To Offences Punishable With Death”: Apex Court Clarifies High Court’s Error

The Supreme Court held that the Calcutta High Court erred in extending the benefit of Section 436-A CrPC to the accused, who were charged under Section 302 IPC and Section 16 of the UAPA—both carrying death as a possible punishment. “For these offences, one of the possible punishments prescribed is death. That, in and of itself, excludes these offences from the ambit of Section 436-A,” the Court observed, striking down the High Court's reasoning to that extent.

Referring to Section 436-A and its corresponding Section 479 in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the Court emphasized that both explicitly exclude offences where death is a statutorily prescribed punishment. The Bench reiterated that this exclusion is categorical and cannot be circumvented even if the undertrial period is prolonged.

Jnaneshwari Express Tragedy and Legal Proceedings

The case pertains to the tragic derailment of Train No. 2102, the Jnaneshwari Express, on May 28, 2010, between Khemasuli and Sardiha in West Bengal, allegedly due to sabotage by Maoist sympathizers. The incident resulted in the deaths of 148 people and injuries to 170, as the passenger train collided with a goods train after derailment.

The CBI, which took over the investigation, filed a chargesheet accusing several individuals, including Dayamoy Mahato and others, under Sections 120B and 302 IPC, Sections 150/151 of the Railways Act, and Sections 16 and 18 of the UAPA. The charges stemmed from an alleged conspiracy to damage railway infrastructure to protest against State deployment of joint forces in Maoist-affected areas.

The accused were initially denied bail in 2016 with directions to conclude trial within a year. However, delays persisted, prompting the High Court to grant bail in 2022–2023, citing prolonged incarceration and relying on Section 436-A and Article 21.

Supreme Court: “Individual Liberty Not Absolute When Sovereignty is Under Threat”

While acknowledging the role of Article 21 in protecting liberty and ensuring a speedy trial, the Supreme Court held that in cases involving national security and mass casualties, these rights must be balanced with societal interest. “Individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to just exceptions—i.e., the paramount considerations of national interest, sovereignty and integrity of the nation,” the Court remarked.

Criticising the High Court's unqualified reliance on Article 21, the Bench stated: “The High Court let loose the accused merely on the plank of Article 21, overlooking the gravity of the offence and the statutory bar under Section 436-A. The approach adopted by the High Court is fallacious.”

Nonetheless, the Court drew upon its own jurisprudence, including Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and Angela Harish Sontakke, to reaffirm that prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial may still justify bail in exceptional cases—especially when liberty has not been misused.

“Liberty Cannot Become Hostage to Glacial Trials”: Court Declines to Cancel Bail After 3 Years of No Misuse

Despite finding the High Court's reasoning erroneous, the Supreme Court refrained from interfering with the bail granted to the accused, primarily due to the inordinate delay in the trial and the conduct of the accused while on bail.

The Court noted that since their release in 2022–2023, the accused had not attempted to abscond, influence witnesses, or obstruct justice. “Sending them back to custody now would not serve a fruitful purpose,” the Bench held.

As per the records, the trial—initiated in 2010—has seen only 176 out of 204 witnesses examined in fifteen years. “The glacial pace at which the trial has proceeded cannot justify the incarceration of the accused, particularly when they have already been in prison for a dozen years,” the Court said.

“Reverse Burden Under UAPA Cannot Be Allowed To Become Presumptive Conviction”: Powerful Reflections on Access to Justice

In a powerful articulation of constitutional values, the judgment underscores the difficulty undertrials face in UAPA cases, where a reverse burden of proof (under Section 43E) significantly raises the bar for bail. The Court observed:

“If the system imposes an extraordinary burden yet denies the tools to discharge it, the promise of constitutionalism fades into symbolism.”

The Bench acknowledged that socio-economically disadvantaged accused struggle to rebut such presumptions due to limited access to evidence, legal assistance, and the State's overwhelming investigative machinery.

Calling for a more responsive judicial approach, the Court stressed that “institutions of justice must act not as passive observers but as active guarantors of fairness.”

Directions to Expedite Trials in UAPA and Other Reverse-Burden Statutes

Recognizing the endemic delays in trials under UAPA, the Court issued a two-fold set of directions:

Directions in Personam (For the Jnaneshwari Case):

• Trial court to conduct day-to-day hearings with minimal adjournments.
• High Court's Administrative Judge to oversee compliance every four weeks.

Directions in Rem (For All High Courts and States):

• High Courts to assess the pendency of UAPA cases and ensure adequate special courts and staffing.
• Legal Services Authorities to ensure all UAPA undertrials are made aware of their right to representation.
• Older cases (pending for over five years) to be prioritised and taken up on a day-to-day basis.
• Reports on progress and systemic obstacles to be regularly reviewed by High Courts on the administrative side.

The Registrar (Judicial) was directed to circulate the judgment to all High Courts and State Chief Secretaries for immediate implementation.

A Judicial Balancing Act Between Liberty and Security

In sum, the Supreme Court struck down the Calcutta High Court’s reasoning that relied on Section 436-A CrPC and Article 21 for granting bail in a grave terrorism case. Yet, recognising the long passage of time and absence of any misuse of bail, it chose not to cancel the bail of the accused.

The judgment is a crucial reiteration of the limits of personal liberty in terrorism and national security cases, while simultaneously calling for systemic reforms to ensure that even undertrials charged with serious offences are not forgotten victims of procedural delay.

“A democracy is judged not by how it treats the unquestionably innocent, but by how it safeguards the rights of those it suspects.”

Date of Decision: 11 December 2025