Table of Contents

APSC Answer Writing (Daily) based on Assam Tribune – 30/4/2025

For APSC CCE and other Assam Competitive examinations aspirants, practicing Daily Answer Writing is vital. This blog covers the most important Main question and its model Answer from the Assam Tribune today (30-04-2025).

📝 Mains Question (GS Paper 2 – Polity | Judiciary | Federalism)

“The case of multiple UAPA trials against Sharjeel Imam raises critical questions about the balance between federal criminal jurisdiction and individual rights. Critically examine this in the context of India’s constitutional and legal framework.”

🔹 Introduction

The recent Supreme Court observation in the Sharjeel Imam case, where he faces multiple UAPA and sedition cases across different states for a single speech, throws light on the tension between India’s federal criminal framework and fundamental rights. It underscores the need to align counter-terror laws with judicial efficiency and constitutional safeguards.

🔹 Core Issues at Stake

Issue	Explanation
Multiple FIRs for the Same Speech	Imam faces charges in Delhi, Assam, UP, Bihar for similar content
Double Jeopardy	Article 20(2) bars multiple prosecutions for the same offence
Right to Fair Trial	Repeated prosecutions strain due process, especially in UAPA cases with extended detention
Federal vs Central Jurisdiction	Law and order is a State subject, but national security and UAPA are under the Centre

🔹 Legal Framework Involved

Article 20(2) – No person shall be prosecuted twice for the same offence (protection against double jeopardy)
Article 21 – Right to life includes a speedy and fair trial
UAPA, 1967 – Allows up to 180 days detention without charge sheet, often used pre-emptively
CrPC Sections 406 & 408 – Enable consolidation or transfer of trials for justice delivery
Concurrent List (Schedule VII) – Criminal laws are concurrent, enabling overlapping jurisdiction

🔹 Critical Concerns

Concern	Implication
Trial Fatigue	The accused must respond to similar charges across distant courts
Logistical Injustice	State police may act without full coordination, undermining national consistency
Prosecutorial Overreach	Same evidence base used to file redundant charges under harsh laws like UAPA
Misuse of UAPA	High pre-trial incarceration despite <5% conviction rate (NCRB data)

🔹 Judicial Observations (2025)

“If the speech is the same, why should he be tried separately in different states?”
This reflects the Court’s view that a single offence should not attract fragmented legal action, which undermines the fairness of the trial process.

🔹 Way Forward

Guidelines on Multi-Jurisdictional Trials
- Supreme Court must lay down principles for consolidation of cases arising from the same act.
Strengthening Central Oversight in UAPA
- A national coordination agency (like NIA) should be empowered to centralize similar FIRs.
Faster Judicial Review Mechanisms
- Constitution of Special UAPA Benches to periodically assess evidence and justify continued detention.
Parliamentary Scrutiny of Anti-Terror Laws
- Ensure UAPA is not used as a tool for harassment or political vendetta.
Victim-Centric Counterterrorism
- Align law enforcement with democratic rights without compromising national security.

🔹 Conclusion

The Sharjeel Imam case is a litmus test for India’s judicial integrity, cooperative federalism, and commitment to constitutional values. Ensuring that the fight against terrorism does not trample individual liberty is a cornerstone of democratic governance. The Supreme Court now has an opportunity to set a precedent that balances justice, security, and dignity.

✨ Looking for top-quality APSC Mains Guidance with Personalised Mentor?

🔔 Join Our WhatsApp Study Group!

For exclusive access to premium quality content, including study materials, current affairs, MCQs, and model answers for APSC CCE and other Assam competitive exams.

Click here to join: SuchitraACS Study WhatsApp Group