Latest JudgementTerrorism and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987

State (CBI) Vs Mohd. Salim Zargar @ Fayaz & Ors, 2025

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of procedural safeguards in the recording of confessional statements.

Supreme Court of India·21 March 2025

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision

21 March 2025

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 15 of Terrorism and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA)

Facts of the Case

In 1990, armed militants associated with the Jammu & Kashmir Students Liberation Front (JKSLF) kidnapped Dr. Mushir-ul-Haq (Vice Chancellor of Kashmir University) and Abdul Gani Zargar (Personal Secretary).
The kidnappers demanded the release of three militants in exchange for the hostages. When the demand was refused, the hostages were allegedly murdered with an AK-47 rifle.
The case was initially handled by local police but was later transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The accused were charged under the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA).
Confessional statements recorded from the accused were later rejected by the Special Court due to procedural lapses.
The CBI appealed against the acquittal of the seven accused persons.

Whether the confessional statements of the accused were admissible, given the failure to ensure their voluntariness and the violation of TADA procedures?
Whether the Special Court rightly acquitted the accused due to lack of credible evidence and procedural violations in the investigation and trial?

The Supreme Court dismissed the CBI’s appeals, affirming the acquittal of the accused persons.
The Court held that the confessional statements were unreliable as they did not meet the procedural safeguards under TADA.
The Court noted that the confession was recorded in an environment that was not conducive to a free atmosphere, such as a heavily guarded BSF camp.
The Court observed that the time of recording and place of production of the accused were not mentioned, further undermining the reliability of the confessions.
The failure to recover the murder weapon (AK-47) weakened the prosecution's case, with forensic evidence failing to link the accused to the crime.
Witnesses could not identify the accused, as their descriptions were too vague to establish any connection.

The confessional statements were ruled inadmissible due to violations of the TADA Act and the Kartar Singh guidelines.
The CBI’s appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of the accused was upheld.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of procedural safeguards in the recording of confessional statements, especially under TADA. The failure to adhere to these safeguards rendered the confessions unreliable.
The Court lamented the lack of a fair investigation and noted how truth and justice were not served in this case. It also highlighted that draconian provisions like those under TADA have since been repealed.
The Court criticized the CBI's handling of the case, particularly in terms of the lack of credible evidence and the failure to recover crucial forensic evidence.