Anti-terror law upheld in substance as a special regime, with one photographic identification provision struck down as unfair.

Legislation targeting terrorism and disruptive activity was treated as a distinct response to grave threats to the sovereignty and integrity of India, so it was not confined to the State List public order field and was supported by Parliament's residuary power. Special procedures on confession, in camera proceedings, witness anonymity, arrest, bail, and Designated Courts were broadly upheld as valid for a specially classified category of offences, subject to fairness and rational nexus requirements. The exclusion of anticipatory bail and stricter bail conditions were sustained. The provision permitting identification through photographs was held unfair and unreasonable and was invalidated.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned anti-terror legislation fell within Parliament's legislative competence and not within the exclusive field of public order under the State List; (ii) whether the special procedural provisions relating to confession, in camera proceedings, witness anonymity, appeal, arrest and bail were violative of Articles 14, 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution; (iii) whether the provisions concerning Designated Courts, their composition and continuance in office, and the restriction on anticipatory bail and bail were constitutionally valid; (iv) whether the provision enabling identification through photographs was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned anti-terror legislation fell within Parliament's legislative competence and not within the exclusive field of public order under the State List.

Analysis: The subject-matter of the legislation was found to concern terrorism and disruptive activity of a grave order affecting the sovereignty and integrity of India, and not merely local public order. Applying the doctrine of pith and substance, the Court held that such legislation could not be confined to Entry 1 of the State List. It was also held to be supportable under Parliament's residuary power and capable of falling within the field of defence of India. The State List argument was rejected.

Conclusion: The challenge on legislative incompetence failed and the legislation was upheld on competence.

Issue (ii): Whether the special procedural provisions relating to confession, in camera proceedings, witness anonymity, appeal, arrest and bail were violative of Articles 14, 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution.

Analysis: The Court accepted that terrorism is a distinct and aggravated class of crime and that a special procedure can be devised for its effective trial if the classification has a rational nexus with the object of the law. The provisions on speedy trial, restricted bail, direct appeal to the Supreme Court, and limited witness protection were sustained as reasonable in the special context. The Court also held that the exclusion of anticipatory bail for such offences did not, by itself, infringe personal liberty. However, the separate opinion held Section 15 unconstitutional, taking the view that confession before a police officer offended fair-trial and self-incrimination guarantees. The majority, however, upheld Section 15 and associated safeguards, while observing that confessions must be recorded with scrupulous fairness.

Conclusion: The special procedure was broadly upheld as constitutionally valid, subject to the safeguards and limitations stated in the judgment; the majority upheld Section 15, while the dissent would have struck it down.

Issue (iii): Whether the provisions concerning Designated Courts, their composition and continuance in office, and the restriction on anticipatory bail and bail were constitutionally valid.

Analysis: The majority accepted the special court scheme and the bail restrictions as part of the special anti-terror framework, but found that the system must preserve fairness and judicial independence. The majority upheld the provisions on appointment and continuation of Designated Court judges, while the separate opinion regarded continuance beyond superannuation as inconsistent with judicial independence. The bail restrictions under the special law were sustained because the legislature could impose stricter conditions for a specially classified category of offences.

Conclusion: The special court and bail framework was upheld by the majority.

Issue (iv): Whether the provision enabling identification through photographs was sustainable.

Analysis: The provision was considered incapable of ensuring reliable identification and was found susceptible to error and manipulation. On that basis, it was held to be unfair and unreasonable.

Conclusion: The provision was struck down.

Final Conclusion: The special anti-terror legislation was substantially sustained, but limited provisions were either read down or invalidated, and the judgment left intact the overall statutory scheme while excising the offending provision on photographic identification.

Ratio Decidendi: Legislation targeting terrorism and disruptive activity is not to be tested as a mere public order law, but as a distinct criminal law measure for grave threats to the sovereignty and integrity of the nation, and such special measures are valid if the classification and procedure bear a rational connection to that object and remain fair and reasonable.

---