Court upholds detention extension by competent court, rejects challenge on jurisdiction grounds.

The court dismissed the petition challenging the legality of Gulfisha Fatima's detention, affirming the validity of her judicial custody extension by a competent court. It upheld the jurisdiction of the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ-02) to extend the remand, citing the de facto doctrine to validate his actions. The court clarified that the NIA Act does not require all UAPA cases to be handled exclusively by Special Courts, emphasizing the ASJ-02's authority as a Sessions Court. Consequently, the petition was deemed not maintainable.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the continued detention of Gulfisha Fatima.
2. Jurisdiction and authority of the Additional Sessions Judge to extend judicial custody.
3. Application of the de facto doctrine.
4. Applicability of the NIA Act in the context of UAPA cases.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Continued Detention of Gulfisha Fatima:
The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus for the release of Gulfisha Fatima, asserting that her continued detention was illegal due to the non-functioning of Special Courts under the NIA Act during the COVID-19 pandemic. The respondents argued that Gulfisha Fatima had been produced before competent courts, which duly passed orders extending her judicial custody. The court noted that a writ of habeas corpus would not lie where a person is under detention pursuant to orders passed by a court unless the judicial authority is a usurper of authority. The court found no merit in the petitioner's claim that the detention was illegal, as judicial remand custody was extended by a competent court.

2. Jurisdiction and Authority of the Additional Sessions Judge to Extend Judicial Custody:
The petitioner contended that the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ-02) did not have jurisdiction to extend Gulfisha Fatima's judicial custody as he was not a designated Special Court under the NIA Act. The respondents countered that the District and Sessions Judge had authorized the ASJ-02 to handle cases under the UAPA due to the pandemic. The court held that the ASJ-02 was competent to extend the judicial remand as he acted under the authority vested in him by the District and Sessions Judge, in accordance with Section 10(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The court rejected the petitioner's argument, emphasizing that the ASJ-02 was not a usurper of authority and had acted within his jurisdiction.

3. Application of the De Facto Doctrine:
The court applied the de facto doctrine, which validates the acts of officers who perform their duties under color of lawful authority, even if their appointment is later found to be defective. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Gokaraju Rangaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh to support this doctrine. The court concluded that even if there were any defects in the ASJ-02's authority, his orders were valid under the de facto doctrine, as he acted under the color of authority and public policy necessitated the validation of his acts to prevent confusion and disorder.

4. Applicability of the NIA Act in the Context of UAPA Cases:
The petitioner argued that only a Special Court designated under the NIA Act could extend Gulfisha Fatima's judicial custody. The respondents and the court clarified that the NIA Act does not mandate that all UAPA cases be investigated by the NIA or tried exclusively by Special Courts. The court noted that the UAPA allows other police establishments to investigate cases, and the trial of such cases does not necessarily have to proceed before a Special Court unless specifically assigned to the NIA by the Central Government. The court emphasized that the ASJ-02, being a Sessions Court, had the jurisdiction to handle the remand of Gulfisha Fatima.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, holding that Gulfisha Fatima's detention was lawful and her judicial custody had been validly extended by a competent court. The court affirmed the jurisdiction of the ASJ-02 to extend the judicial remand and applied the de facto doctrine to validate his orders. The petitioner's reliance on the NIA Act was found to be misplaced, and the court concluded that the present writ petition was not maintainable.

---