A Delhi court on Thursday dismissed a plea filed by Tahawwur Hussain Rana, seeking permission to speak with his family over the telephone. The petition was rejected by Special NIA Judge Chander Jit Singh at the Patiala House Court.
Rana’s counsel, Piyush Sachdeva, had argued that as a foreign national, his client possessed a fundamental right to communicate with his family, who were concerned about his wellbeing while in custody.
However, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) opposed the request, raising concerns that Rana could reveal sensitive information related to the ongoing investigation.
Earlier this week, the court had issued a notice to the NIA in response to Rana’s application for telephonic contact with his family members.
Tahawwur Rana, a Pakistani-Canadian national, is a former military doctor and has been accused of involvement in multiple terrorism-related activities. He was recently extradited from the United States to face charges in India.
During a recent remand hearing, the court acknowledged the existence of prima facie evidence suggesting a large-scale terrorist conspiracy spanning several Indian cities, with potential targets outside the country as well. The court noted that such allegations had direct implications for national security.
It emphasised the need to confront Rana with witnesses, forensic reports, and recovered documents, particularly those relating to reconnaissance efforts.
Given the seriousness of the charges, the court had previously granted an 18-day police custody remand, while directing authorities to strictly adhere to procedural safeguards, including medical examinations every 48 hours.
The court also took into account Rana’s health condition, along with sovereign assurances provided by the Indian government during the extradition process, and ordered that he be given appropriate medical care in accordance with established norms.
Rana faces charges under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), including conspiracy to wage war, forgery, and engagement in terrorist acts.
The court clarified that under extradition law, he can only be prosecuted for offences that have been expressly sanctioned in the extradition agreement between India and the United States.
Due to the application of UAPA Sections 16 and 18, the court also observed that extended police custody beyond regular Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) limits is permissible in terrorism-related cases.
Follow us
