In Brief
The appellant challenged a sanction order and prosecution initiated by the NIA under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). He argued the statutory timelines for granting sanction were violated and there was insufficient independent review. The Supreme Court held that the timelines mandated by Rules 3 & 4 of the 2008 Rules are mandatory and must be strictly followed. However, the brevity of review time does not per se indicate non-application of mind if the competent authority considered relevant materials. Questions of whether transactions were related, whether the appellant falls under the corporate liability exemption in Section 22A, and misjoinder of charges are factual matters for trial, not appellate determination. The appeal was dismissed; trial to proceed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.