Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. He submits that the applicant has been rendered remediless as there is no certainty as to the forum where the applicant can apply for his regular bail or an interim bail for attending the Parliamentary sessions.

15. Mr. Hariharan submits that it is settled principle of law that the absence of forum or court for redressal of grievances amounts to violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, when the question involved is of personal liberty.

32. It is thus, apparent that since August, 2024 the application(s) of the applicant filed before the learned Special Court (NIA), seeking regular or interim bail, could not be taken to their logical end only for the reason that the administrative order designating the said Special Court (NIA) as MP/MLA court is under consideration.

33. At this stage, apt would it be to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashim v. National Investigation Agency (2022) 1 SCC 695, wherein, it was observed that the liberty guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. It was further held that deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Timely delivery of justice is part of human rights and denial of speedy trial is a threat to public confidence in the administration of justice. The relevant extract from the judgment is as under:

34. In Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan1 also, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that access to justice is a fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. If access to justice is a facet of fundamental rights, then non-availability of forum for disposal of applicant's application for bail, either interim or regular, renders the petitioner remediless for the time being, and concomitantly deprives him of the aforesaid right. This being the position, it is deemed appropriate that (2016) 8 SCC 509 in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case as noted above and in an attempt to balance the competing interests and rights, this Court would not completely negate petitioner's plea for custody parole to attend the Parliamentary session for the remaining two days on 11.02.2025 and 13.02.2025. However, to allay the apprehensions articulated by the respondent/NIA, appropriate conditions can be imposed.