Independent prior approval and informed sanction are essential safeguards under stringent anti-terror law

Prior approval or sanction under a stringent anti-terror statute operates as a jurisdictional safeguard and must be exercised independently by the designated authority. The District Superintendent of Police cannot merely forward the matter for another authority's permission; the statutory discretion must be personally and properly applied. Likewise, a governmental sanction affecting liberty must reflect informed satisfaction based on independent scrutiny of the record, not mechanical acceptance of police communication. A sanction or approval granted without such application of mind is invalid and vitiates proceedings under the Act.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether invocation of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 was valid in the absence of prior approval by the District Superintendent of Police. (ii) Whether the State Government's sanction to proceed under the Act was valid when granted without proper application of mind.

Issue (i): Whether invocation of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 was valid in the absence of prior approval by the District Superintendent of Police.

Analysis: Section 20A(1) made prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police a condition precedent for recording information about an offence under the Act. The power had to be exercised by that statutory authority itself. Where the District Superintendent of Police merely forwarded the matter to another authority for permission, the statutory discretion was not independently exercised and the safeguard enacted by the statute was defeated.

Conclusion: Invocation of the Act was invalid because the District Superintendent of Police did not himself grant the required prior approval.

Issue (ii): Whether the State Government's sanction to proceed under the Act was valid when granted without proper application of mind.

Analysis: Even assuming an additional administrative safeguard requiring Government consent, the sanction was granted hastily and only on the basis of the police communication, without independent scrutiny of the record or assessment of the material. A sanction affecting liberty under a stringent statute must rest on an informed and independent satisfaction, and not on mechanical acceptance of police allegations.

Conclusion: The State Government's sanction was invalid for want of proper application of mind.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings under the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 were quashed, and the appellants were released on bail in relation to the remaining charge, subject to the conditions imposed by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute makes prior approval or sanction a jurisdictional safeguard, the designated authority must exercise the power independently and with informed application of mind; approval or sanction given by another authority, or mechanically on external dictation, is invalid and vitiates the proceedings.

---