This article has been written by Kilimi Praneeth Reddy a law student pursuing the B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) program at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University (RMLNLU), Lucknow.
Abstract
The contemporary legal and policy developments reflect a significant engagement with constitutional principles, international law, and socio-legal reforms. The ruling of the Supreme Court of India in Pardeep Kumar @ Banu v State of Punjab reiterates that prolonged undertrial incarceration without commencement of trial amounts to punishment, thereby strengthening the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 and reinforcing the right to a speedy trial. At the international level, India’s diplomatic engagement, led by Narendra Modi with Mohammed bin Salman, underscores the importance of freedom of navigation and protection of energy infrastructure, rooted in principles of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and international humanitarian law.
Simultaneously, the proposed implementation of the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in Assam, as announced by Amit Shah, brings renewed focus on Article 44 of the Constitution and the need to harmonise personal laws with constitutional values of equality and social reform. However, it also raises concerns regarding the balance between legal uniformity and cultural diversity under Articles 14 and 25. Collectively, these developments highlight a broader constitutional narrative ensuring liberty, rule of law, and reform-oriented governance while maintaining equilibrium between rights, obligations, and societal diversity.
KEYWORDS: Article 21, Speedy Trial, Undertrial Detention, Freedom of Navigation, UNCLOS, Energy Security, Uniform Civil Code, Article 44, Constitutional BalanceIncarceration Without Trial Amounts to Punishment: Supreme Court Grants Bail After Prolonged Undertrial Custody
Introduction
Reaffirming the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court has held that keeping an accused in custody for nearly two years without the commencement of trial amounts to punishment. Allowing an appeal against the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s refusal of bail, the Court granted bail to an undertrial accused, emphasising that prolonged incarceration pending trial, in the absence of any progress in the proceedings, cannot be sustained.
Factual Background
The appellant, Pardeep Kumar @ Banu, was arrested on 13 April 2024 in connection with a criminal case involving allegations of extortion, attempt to murder, criminal intimidation, criminal conspiracy, along with offences under the Arms Act [specific statutory provisions not detailed]. Following his arrest, the appellant remained in judicial custody as an undertrial prisoner.An application for bail was rejected by the Punjab and Haryana High Court by an order dated 11 July 2025, leading the appellant to approach the Supreme Court by way of the present criminal appeal.
Status of Trial and Custodial Period
While considering the appeal, the Supreme Court noted the following undisputed aspects:
- The appellant had remained in custody for almost two years.
- The prosecution proposed to examine 23 witnesses.
- No witness had been examined till the date of
- There was no indication that the trial would commence in the near
The Court observed that, given the number of witnesses cited by the prosecution and the lack of progress thus far, the conclusion of the trial was not in sight and was likely to take a considerable amount of time.
Reasoning of the Supreme Court
Allowing the appeal, the Bench drew a clear distinction between pre-trial detention and punitive incarceration. The Court observed:“Almost two years have passed since the appellant was arrested without trial having commenced and conclusion thereof nowhere being in sight. Incarceration without trial amounts to punishment.”
Taking an overall view of the facts and circumstances, the Court held that continued detention of the appellant pending trial was not necessary. The prolonged period of custody, coupled with the complete absence of progress in the trial, weighed decisively in favour of granting bail.
Operative Directions
The Supreme Court:
- Set aside the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 11 July 2025; and
- Directed that the appellant be released on bail, subject to:
- Furnishing appropriate bail bonds; and
- Compliance with such conditions as may be imposed by the trial court
Undertrial Incarceration and Article 21: Broader Jurisprudence
The present decision is consistent with the Supreme Court’s settled jurisprudence recognising prolonged undertrial incarceration as violative of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The Court has, on several occasions, expressed concern over accused persons remaining in custody for extended periods without trial or conviction:
- In Senthil Balaji v. State (2024), while granting bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the Court held that stringent bail conditions under special statutes such as the PMLA, UAPA, and NDPS Act cannot be used as a tool to keep an accused incarcerated indefinitely without trial.
- In July 2025, the Court flagged systemic delays in trials conducted by the National Investigation Agency, observing that if the State fails to provide adequate infrastructure for expeditious trials, courts would be left with no option but to grant bail to undertrial prisoners. The Court posed the question: “For how long can suspects be kept in indefinite custody?”
- The Court has also addressed delays in deciding bail applications, holding that such pleas should ordinarily be decided within two months, as prolonged pendency itself undermines personal liberty.
- In February 2025, the Court observed that an accused spending six to seven years in jail as an undertrial before final adjudication amounts to a violation of the right to speedy trial under Article 21.
- More recently, the Court flagged “inexplicable and huge delay” in criminal trials in Maharashtra, noting that repeated delays in conducting trials continue to be a serious
Limits of Delay as a Ground for Bail
At the same time, the Supreme Court has clarified that delay in trial is not an automatic ground for bail. In January 2026, while dismissing the bail pleas of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case, the Court held that delay cannot operate as a “trumpcard” and must be evaluated alongside the nature and gravity of the allegations and other relevant considerations.
Representation
For the Appellant: Advocate Gaurav Goyal and Advocate Srija Choudhury
For the State of Punjab: Advocate Abha Sharma, along with Advocates Anupam Maurya and Praneet Das
Conclusion
The ruling in Pardeep Kumar @ Banu v. State of Punjab underscores the Supreme Court’s continued emphasis on preventing punitive pre-trial detention and protecting personal liberty. While reiterating that the seriousness of allegations remains a relevant consideration, the Court has once again made clear that indefinite incarceration without the commencement of trial is incompatible with Article 21 and the constitutional mandate of a speedy and fair criminal process.
PM Modi Speaks to Saudi Crown Prince; Emphasis on Freedom of Navigation and Protection of Energy Infrastructure
Introduction
Amid escalating tensions in West Asia, Prime Minister Narendra Modi held a telephonic conversation with Mohammed bin Salman, emphasising the need to safeguard freedom of navigation and protection of energy infrastructure. The discussion assumes significant legal and geopolitical importance, particularly in light of disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz a critical maritime route through which nearly 20% of global energy supplies pass. India’s position reflects its commitment to international legal principles governing maritime security and uninterrupted trade.
Factual Background
The conversation took place against the backdrop of the ongoing West Asia conflict that began on February 28, 2026, involving military escalations between the United States, Israel, and Iran.
During the discussion:
- Both leaders reviewed the regional security situation
- They agreed on the importance of keeping shipping routes open and secure
- India reiterated its condemnation of attacks on energy infrastructure
- The Prime Minister also acknowledged Saudi Arabia’s role in supporting the Indian diaspora
This marked the second telephonic interaction between the two leaders since the outbreak of the conflict.
- Strategic Importance of the Strait of Hormuz
The Strait of Hormuz holds immense global significance:
- It facilitates nearly 20% of global oil and LNG trade
- It connects the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman
- It is under significant influence of Iran, making it geopolitically sensitive
Recent restrictions imposed by Iran on shipping passage have raised concerns regarding:
- Disruption of global energy supply chains
- Escalation of maritime insecurity
- Impact on energy-import dependent economies like India
Legal Framework: Freedom of Navigation
The emphasis on freedom of navigation is rooted in international law, particularly under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Key legal principles include:
- Transit passage through international straits cannot be impeded
- Coastal states cannot arbitrarily suspend navigation rights
- Freedom of navigation is considered an erga omnes obligation (owed to the international community)
Any obstruction or restriction of passage in such straits may amount to a violation of international maritime law.
Protection of Energy Infrastructure
India’s condemnation of attacks on energy infrastructure reflects broader legal and policy concerns:
- Energy infrastructure is considered critical civilian infrastructure
- Attacks on such infrastructure may violate principles under international humanitarian law
- Disruption impacts not just states directly involved, but also global economic stability
Thus, safeguarding energy routes is not merely a strategic necessity but also a legal obligation under international norms.
India’s Diplomatic and Legal Position
India’s approach reflects a balanced and law-based stance:
- Engagement with multiple stakeholders including UAE, Qatar, Iran, Israel, and France
- Emphasis on neutrality combined with rule-based order
- Assertion of freedom of navigation as a global right
- Focus on protecting energy security and economic interests
This aligns with India’s broader commitment to multilateralism and the international legal order.
- Broader Implications
The developments highlight several key concerns:
- Increasing vulnerability of global supply chains
- Strategic importance of maritime chokepoints
- Need for international cooperation in conflict zones Growing relevance of international maritime law
For India:
- Nearly half of its crude oil imports depend on West Asian routes
- Any disruption directly affects economic stability and energy security
Conclusion
The telephonic conversation between India and Saudi Arabia underscores the critical intersection of international law, diplomacy, and economic security in times of geopolitical conflict. By emphasising freedom of navigation and protection of energy infrastructure, India has reaffirmed its commitment to a rules-based global order.
In the face of escalating tensions, the preservation of open sea lanes and secure energy routes remains essential not only for regional stability but also for the functioning of the global economy. The situation ultimately reinforces that international law must act as the guiding framework in resolving conflicts impacting shared global resources.
Uniform Civil Code in Assam: Political Promise and Constitutional Vision
Introduction
Reinforcing the ongoing national discourse on uniformity in personal laws, Union Home Minister Amit Shah has announced that a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) will be implemented in Assam if the Bharatiya Janata Party secures a third consecutive term in the State. The proposal aims to establish uniform civil laws governing marriage, divorce, succession, and related matters, thereby advancing the constitutional vision of equality and social reform under Article 44 of the Constitution.
Factual Background
The announcement was made during a public meeting in Assam ahead of the State Assembly elections, where Amit Shah emphasised the need for legal uniformity.
Key aspects of the announcement include:
- Commitment to introduce UCC upon electoral victory
- Objective to ensure uniformity in civil laws across communities
- Focus on strengthening social reforms within the State
This development follows similar legislative efforts in states like Uttarakhand and Gujarat, indicating a growing trend of state-level implementation of UCC principles.
Constitutional Framework of Uniform Civil Code.
The concept of UCC finds its basis in:
Article 44 of the Constitution of India (Directive Principles of State Policy)
It provides that:
- The State shall endeavour to secure a uniform civil code for all citizens
However:
- It is non-justiciable, meaning it is not enforceable by courts
- Implementation depends on legislative and political will
The UCC seeks to replace diverse personal laws based on religion with a common set of civil rules applicable to all citizens.
Objectives Behind UCC Implementation
The proposed move in Assam is aimed at achieving:
- Legal uniformity across different communities
- Gender justice and equality in personal laws
- Simplification of legal processes
- Strengthening of social reform measures
It reflects an attempt to harmonise personal laws with constitutional values of equality and secularism.
Legal and Social Implications
The introduction of UCC carries both opportunities and challenges: Potential Advantages
- Promotes equality before the law (Article 14)
- Eliminates discriminatory practices in personal laws
- Strengthens national integration.
Concerns and Challenges
- Possible conflict with freedom of religion (Article 25)
- Sensitivity towards cultural and customary practices
- Need for inclusive consultation with stakeholders
Thus, implementation requires a careful balance between uniformity and diversity.
- State-Level Implementation:
Emerging Trend: The proposal for Assam reflects a broader shift:
- States like Uttarakhand have already enacted UCC laws
- Gujarat has initiated steps toward similar legislation This indicates:
- A move towards federal experimentation in personal law reform
- Gradual evolution rather than immediate nationwide enforcement
Broader Constitutional Debate
The UCC debate lies at the intersection of:
- Fundamental Rights (Articles 14, 21, 25)
- Directive Principles (Article 44)
The judiciary has, in several cases, supported the idea of UCC as a tool for reform, while also recognising the need to respect India’s pluralistic society.
Conclusion
The announcement of implementing a Uniform Civil Code in Assam represents a significant step in the ongoing effort to harmonise personal laws with constitutional ideals. While the objective of achieving legal uniformity and social reform is commendable, its success will depend on balanced legislation, stakeholder participation, and sensitivity to India’s diversity. Ultimately, the UCC debate reflects a larger constitutional question how to reconcile unity with diversity, and reform with tradition, within a democratic framework.
CONCLUSION
The developments analysed today reaffirm the centrality of constitutional values in shaping both judicial decisions and policy initiatives. The Supreme Court’s intervention against prolonged undertrial detention reinforces that liberty cannot be sacrificed due to systemic delays, and that the criminal justice system must adhere to the mandate of fairness and timeliness. At the same time, India’s diplomatic stance on maritime security reflects its commitment to a rules-based international order, where freedom of navigation and protection of critical infrastructure remain essential for global stability.
The proposed introduction of the Uniform Civil Code in Assam further illustrates the evolving nature of constitutional governance, where the State seeks to align personal laws with principles of equality and reform, while navigating the complexities of religious freedom and cultural pluralism. These developments collectively demonstrate that the law is not static but continuously adapts to address emerging challenges.
Ultimately, the legal trajectory reflected in these issues emphasises a core principle: the Constitution functions as a balancing framework protecting individual liberty, guiding state action, and ensuring that reform progresses in harmony with justice, diversity, and the rule of law.