Review is Maintainable Where There is a Jurisdictional Error: Karnataka High Court Relieves UAPA Accused by Restoring Writ Petitions

Karnataka High Court allowed a set of review petitions and recalled its earlier common order dated 5th April 2023, which had dismissed the accused persons' writ petitions against proceedings under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that the Court had committed a jurisdictional error by hearing the matter as a single bench when, in fact, such matters under the NIA Act require to be placed before a Division Bench under Section 21 of the Act.

In a significant statement, the Court declared: “When there is a jurisdictional error, it would undoubtedly become a reason for entertaining the review petition.”

The petitioners, including Syed Atiq Ahmed, were facing proceedings in Spl.C.No.141/2021 for offences under Sections 16, 18, and 20 of the UAPA, various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. Their writ petitions challenging these proceedings were dismissed by a single bench on 5th April 2023. However, during the review, the accused pointed out that the proceedings under the NIA Act and UAPA could not have been heard and decided by a single judge bench under the Karnataka High Court Rules.

The Court candidly accepted: “Later, certain jurisdictional errors are noticed in considering these petitions at the hands of this Court.”

It was also highlighted by both counsels that such cases, due to their nature involving Section 21 of the NIA Act, mandatorily require a Division Bench to hear the matter.

Court Relies on Supreme Court and Kerala High Court Full Bench — Review Allowed on Jurisdictional Grounds

Justice Nagaprasanna applied the principles from Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320, and Mastiguda Aboobacker vs. National Investigation Agency [(2020) SCC Online Ker 5159], wherein it was reiterated that:

“Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason would warrant review.”

The Court remarked: “In the light of the jurisdictional error, which would cut at the root of the matter... I deem it appropriate to entertain the review petitions.”

It further acknowledged that the prior adjudication of writ petitions under UAPA offenses by a Single Bench had created a procedural irregularity.

“Section 21 of the NIA Act Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction to a Division Bench” — High Court Clarifies

Referring to the statutory scheme, the Court cited: “Section 21(2) of the NIA Act clearly mandates that every appeal under the NIA Act shall be heard by a Bench of two Judges of the High Court.”

The Court followed the reasoning adopted by the Kerala High Court Full Bench, which had earlier held: “All persons involved in cases falling under the canopy of the NIA Act, even if no NIA Court is constituted, are entitled to urge their grievance before a Bench of two Judges, whatever be the provision they invoke for institution of proceedings.”

Justice Nagaprasanna held that the same principle must apply even when a party invokes Section 482 CrPC or seeks other relief against interlocutory orders or proceedings under UAPA.

Granting the review, the Court concluded: “The review petitions stand allowed and the writ petitions are restored to file.”

The Court directed the Registry to place the restored writ petitions before the appropriate Division Bench for fresh consideration. Liberty was expressly granted to the petitioners to raise all their grievances before the Division Bench.

Date of Decision: 27th March 2025