NEW DELHI: The Constitution will prevail over all other laws and regulations,

said on Thursday and made it clear that in case of any contradiction or conflict between constitutional provisions and special laws like NDPS, UAPA and PMLA, it is the former which will triumph.

It reiterated that the right to speedy trial was a fundamental right and could not be violated under any law and could be the ground for bail.

The bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and A S Chandurkar faulted the apex court's earlier order, which held that under special statutes such as NDPS Act, an accused's right under Article 21 (speedy trial) must be exercised within the confines of Section 37 of the Act (stringent bail conditions) and cannot be invoked solely on the ground of prolonged delay to override Section 37.

The latest ruling comes amid sharp differences within the apex court over granting bail in PMLA, NDPS and UAPA cases on grounds of delay in trial, with the issue now before a larger bench.

Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and A S Chandurkar also said fundamental rights cannot be tinkered with so lightly, not even under the special statutes.

The bench said, "First and foremost, the rights conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution are not only constitutional rights.

These are fundamental rights. Right to life and liberty as enshrined in Article 21 are at the core of our constitutional jurisprudence. These fundamental rights cannot be tinkered with so lightly, not even under the special statutes."

Such observations run counter to numerous judgements of this court which reiterate the proposition that when there is a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, the rigour of Section 37 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act or similar such provisions under special statutes would have to give way, the court said.

The court's observation assumes significance as there are differences of opinion within Supreme Court on the issue of bail in offences under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), NDPS and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) on grounds of delay in trial. Contradictory orders have been passed on whether the fundamental right to have a speedy trial would prevail over stringent bail conditions stipulated under special laws, with one bench saying the right to speedy trial cannot be the ground to grant bail in PMLA, UAPA offences while other benches took contradictory stands.

The controversy now stands referred to a larger bench after two benches took swipes at each other in their judicial orders. "A statute, special or otherwise, cannot be a guide to interpret the Constitution; rather, it should be the other way round. To reiterate, a fundamental right must be interpreted in such a manner that it upholds and furthers the objective of such a fundamental right," the bench said, adding, "The court must interpret the Constitution in a manner which would enable citizens to enjoy the rights guaranteed by it in the fullest measure."