Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab

Facts

• Challenges to the constitutionality of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA).
• TADA modified several procedural safeguards: admissibility of confessions to police, in-camera trials, modified bail provisions.
• Petitioners argued these modifications violated Art. 21 fair trial guarantees.

Issue

1. Whether special procedural provisions in anti-terrorism legislation can eliminate basic fair trial safeguards.

Held

• Fair trial is a fundamental right that cannot be eliminated even for heinous offences.
• Non-derogable safeguards include: right to legal representation, right to cross-examine, right to know charges, right to speedy trial, protection against self-incrimination.
• Procedure can be modified (e.g., in-camera trials for witness protection) but not eliminated.
• TADA was upheld with safeguards read in; several provisions were read down.
• The gravity of the offence does not justify denial of fundamental procedural rights.

Ratio Decidendi

Even when the State faces existential threats (terrorism), constitutional rights do not disappear. The Constitution provides the framework within which even emergency measures must operate. A trial that denies basic procedural justice is no trial at all: it is an exercise of State power masquerading as justice.