The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that once a statutory remedy is available under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), a litigant cannot bypass that remedy by invoking appellate jurisdiction under the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act. This decision arose from an appeal challenging the refusal to release a vehicle seized under UAPA, which the appellants sought to recover via invoking Section 21 of the NIA Act.
The factual background involves an FIR registered after a joint interception (naka) by the police and the 3rd Rashtriya Rifles, during which two individuals were stopped under suspicious circumstances. Authorities claimed to have recovered a large quantity of live ammunition—ninety live AK-47 rounds—and one live hand grenade from them. The vehicle in question—a load-carrier—was allegedly used in connection with terrorist activities; this vehicle was seized under Section 25 of UAPA, after obtaining the required approval from the Director General of Police (DGP). At the trial level, the Special Court (UAPA) at Anantnag rejected an application for release of the vehicle, on the basis that proceedings were ongoing before the Designated Authority.
The appellants approached the Jammu & Kashmir High Court under Section 21 of the NIA Act, seeking release of the vehicle. They argued that the seizure had been wrongful, alleging non-compliance with statutory preconditions under UAPA, including the requirement of obtaining prior approval, the timelines prescribed, and other procedural safeguards. They also claimed that the vehicle was their only source of livelihood and was not in fact used for terrorist purposes.
On the other side, the state defended the seizure, contending that all required formalities under UAPA had been followed scrupulously. It also argued that the matter was currently under consideration by the Divisional Commissioner, who was acting as the Designated Authority under UAPA.
The High Court’s decision, in a bench of Justices Sindhu Sharma and Shahzad Azeem, set out that Section 25 of UAPA provides a complete code regarding seizure of property alleged to be used in unlawful activities. Specifically, it provides for prior approval for seizure, presentation of the seized property before the Designated Authority within 48 hours, confirmation or revocation of seizure within 60 days, appeal to the Special Court, and thereafter to the High Court under Sections 25(6) and 28 of UAPA. Thus, there is a well-defined statutory process in place under UAPA itself for adjudication of claims, objections, and appeals concerning seizures.
The Court held that since this statutory mechanism is available, the appellants cannot invoke Section 21 of the NIA Act to bypass it. Section 21 of the NIA Act provides appellate jurisdiction to the High Court in certain matters involving NIA. However, using it to sidestep the UAPA’s built-in procedure is impermissible. The bench observed that the order of the Special Court rejecting the release of the seized vehicle was interlocutory in nature, and thus not appealable under Section 21 of the NIA Act. The High Court cautioned that permitting appeals of interlocutory orders under the NIA Act in such a context would amount to usurping the jurisdiction of the Designated Authority under UAPA, which has been assigned functions akin to those of a civil court under Section 31 of UAPA.
The High Court also underlined that the vehicle’s owner could raise all procedural challenges (such as timeline violations, prior approvals, etc.) before the Designated Authority itself. The statutory right of the owner to file objections is protected by the UAPA; such rights are not defeated merely by the existence of an alternate appellate route under another statute.
On these grounds, the High Court dismissed the appeal under Section 21 of the NIA Act, and the connected applications for release of the vehicle. Any interim orders permitting release were vacated. The Court thereby reaffirmed that legal remedies under UAPA must be exhausted before seeking relief under other statutes when the former provides a complete adjudicatory process.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.