Courts must free NIA, UAPA accused if special courts not set up: SC to Centre

The Supreme Court on Friday pulled up the Centre and Maharashtra governments for not creating courts for cases under special statutes, concerned that courts will be forced to grant bail to the accused.

The order by a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said, "If the authority fails to establish courts with requisite infrastructure for conducting speedy trial under the NIA Act and other special statutes, the court would invariably be forced to release the accused on bail, as there is no effective mechanism to conclude the trial in time bound manner."

The bench told additional solicitor-general Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakre, appearing for the Centre and Maharashtra governments, that designating the existing courts as special courts amounted to “coercing” the high court to relabel them.

"We are satisfied that no effective or visible steps have been taken to set up special courts for speedy trial in cases under NIA Act and other special statutes. It goes without saying that setting up of special courts would require creation of posts for superior judicial officers, staff, courtroom and basic amenities," the bench said.

The bench said contrary to its orders, an impression was created that designation of existing court as special court under the NIA Act would be sufficient compliance with directives.

"We are outrightly rejecting this plea taken by the respondents (Centre and the Maharashtra government," the bench said, proposing if the high court chief justice had agreed to it, the court would call for an explanation.

The bench said designating courts as special courts or entrusting exclusive trial under the NIA Act and other special statutes to the existing courts would come at the cost of undertrials and older prisoners or those from marginalised sections of society, languishing in jails.

The top court passed the order on the bail plea of Kailash Ramchandani, an alleged Naxal sympathiser from Gadchiroli in Maharashtra, who was booked after 15 members of a quick response team of the state police were killed in an IED blast in 2019.

The top court recalled its earlier order of 17 March, which had rejected Ramchandani's bail plea filed on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial, and said if the Centre and state governments failed to establish special courts to try NIA cases, his plea for relief should be considered on the next hearing.

"Last opportunity is granted to the Centre and the state government to take decision as per the observations made by the court," the bench said and posted the matter after four weeks.

Thakre earlier submitted that a special court was designated in Mumbai for NIA cases with the high court's approval.

The statement irked the bench, which questioned the ASG about cases the judge was already hearing when the court was designated as a special NIA court. "Why should it be done at the cost of other litigants? If you are bringing new statutes, you need to create adequate infrastructure and sanction posts in superior judicial services," the bench said.

The top court asked not for "commitment" but "action from the government".

The bench flagged the situation in tribunals where outsourced employees were employed by the government to man records "worth thousand of crores".

"Can you imagine these staff employed by service providers keeping the record of cases worth thousands of crores of rupees? If anything happens, who will be responsible? Will there be any accountability?" the bench asked.

The court noted that it was restraining itself from passing an adverse order but "if forced", would pass strictures and document the situation in tribunals as well.

On 23 May, the top court underlined the need for dedicated courts for NIA cases while calling for a "judicial audit" of laws enacted by the Centre and prospective ones by the states.

It said the cases entrusted to the NIA were heinous cases, with pan-India ramifications, and each such case contained hundreds of witnesses and the trial did not progress at the required pace as presiding officers of the courts were busy with other cases.

On 9 May, the top court said it was imperative for the Centre and states to establish courts for speedy trial of cases under special laws and sought to know their stand on the issue.

The top court had previously noted that owing to delays in completion of trial, those accused in heinous offences took advantage of bail as trials couldn't go on indefinitely.

In the present case, Ramchandani has challenged the Bombay High Court order rejecting his bail plea on 5 March 2024. He contended he had been in jail since 2019 and while charges hadn't been framed in the case so far, his co-accused had been granted bail.