Mandatory TADA sanction and unreliable confession evidence cannot sustain a conviction when approval lacks proper application of mind.

Prior approval and sanction under Section 20-A of TADA are mandatory and are invalid if the competent authority does not apply its mind to the relevant materials as a whole; where the material showing the alleged terrorist intention is not properly placed before the sanctioning authority, the prosecution is vitiated. Confessions recorded without a free atmosphere and found inconsistent are unreliable, and a test identification parade loses evidentiary value where the accused has already been exposed through newspaper publication. On this analysis, the commentary states that such evidence cannot sustain the conviction.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the prior approval and sanction under Section 20-A of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 were valid and in accordance with law; (ii) whether the conviction could be sustained on the basis of the confessions and the test identification parade evidence.

Issue (i): whether the prior approval and sanction under Section 20-A of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 were valid and in accordance with law

Analysis: The approval and sanction were held to be defective because the competent authority did not apply its mind to the relevant materials in their entirety, the material showing the alleged terrorist intention was not properly placed before the sanctioning authority, and the statutory requirement of prior approval before cognizance under TADA is mandatory. The omission was treated as going to the root of the matter and not as a mere irregularity.

Conclusion: The prior approval and sanction were invalid, and the TADA proceedings were vitiated.

Issue (ii): whether the conviction could be sustained on the basis of the confessions and the test identification parade evidence

Analysis: The confessions were found involuntary and unreliable, as they were not recorded in a free atmosphere and were inconsistent with each other. The test identification parade was also treated as unreliable because the accused had already been exposed through newspaper publication, making the parade a weak piece of evidence in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The confessions and test identification parade evidence could not sustain the conviction.

Final Conclusion: The criminal proceedings and conviction under TADA could not be sustained, and the appellants were entitled to relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where prior approval or sanction under TADA is granted without proper application of mind to the relevant materials, the cognizance taken thereon is invalid, and involuntary confessions or unreliable identification evidence cannot cure the resulting defect in the prosecution case.

---