SC asks HCs and states to fast-track trial in UAPA cases
The Supreme Court on Thursday directed all high courts and states to fast-track trials under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)
The Supreme Court on Thursday directed all high courts and states to fast-track trials under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), observing that terror cases must be taken up “with efficacy and expediency”.
A bench of justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh stressed that the State, while deploying the full force of anti-terror legislation, must also guarantee that the legal process “starts and concludes” without delay. “It is important that the State…also ensures that the process of law against them starts and concludes with efficacy and expediency, be it investigation or trial,” the court said.
The directions came as the bench heard an appeal by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) over the granting bail to 18 persons accused in the 2010 Jnaneshwari Express derailment in West Bengal, which killed 148 passengers and injured 170. The prosecution alleges the sabotage was intended to register opposition to joint police-paramilitary operations against Maoists in the region.
Even as the Supreme Court held that the Calcutta high court should not have granted bail in such a grave case, it ultimately declined to cancel the accused’s liberty at this stage, noting that the trial has moved at a “glacial pace” for 15 years and that the accused have neither absconded nor misused bail since their release.
Noting that over 3,949 UAPA cases were pending trial and 4,794 pending investigation as per NCRB’s Crimes in India 2023 report, the court issued a comprehensive set of instructions aimed at preventing systemic delays, exacerbated in cases where a “reverse burden of proof” applies.
The court directed state legal services authorities to ensure every undertrial is made aware of their right to legal representation and to expedite the appointment of legal-aid lawyers wherever necessary. High courts have been asked to ascertain the total pendency of UAPA and similar “reverse burden” cases examine whether adequate special or sessions courts are designated to try them. They have also been asked to assess whether judicial staffing is sufficient and issue immediate orders to plug shortages that cause adjournments.
The bench further directed that courts trying UAPA cases must prioritise the oldest matters first and handle those pending for more than five years with special urgency, avoiding routine adjournments and moving such cases on a day-to-day basis.
The Supreme Court also asked high courts to periodically seek reports from trial courts and take up administrative obstacles that hamper progress.
The bench underscored that UAPA trials require heightened vigilance because the statute imposes a reverse burden: once the prosecution establishes basic foundational facts, a presumption of guilt arises, and the accused must disprove it.
This, the court said, becomes especially oppressive when an undertrial remains incarcerated for years without access to evidence, witnesses or legal assistance. “A constitutional democracy does not legitimise burdens by simply declaring them; it must ensure that those burdened are meaningfully equipped to bear them,” the bench observed.
If the State presumes guilt, the court added, then it must also create realistic pathways for an accused to reclaim innocence -- through access to counsel, effective defence preparation and functioning courts.
In the present case, the court said that the high court had erred in granting bail to the 18 accused given the “catastrophic” nature of the offence, which involved the deaths of nearly 150 unsuspecting train passengers. It noted that UAPA offences carry the possibility of the death penalty, placing them outside the protective ambit of Section 436A CrPC.
The high court, the bench said, relied too loosely on Article 21 jurisprudence on speedy trials to release the accused, without weighing the seriousness of the alleged terrorist act and its impact on national security.
However, the Supreme Court ultimately refused to cancel the bail at this stage because the accused have already spent around 12 years in custody before their release and that they have not violated bail conditions or interfered with the trial. Additionally, no supervening circumstances was shown by the CBI to justify re-incarceration, besides the fact that despite earlier directions, 28 witnesses still remain to be examined in a trial that began in 2010.
The court said the delay cannot justify sending the accused back to jail at this stage, though the high court’s approach in granting bail was flawed. The bench directed the trial judge in the Jnaneshwari case to proceed on a day-to-day basis and refuse routine adjournments unless exceptional grounds exist. It also ordered that the trial judge should furnish progress reports every four weeks to the administrative judge nominated by the chief justice of the Calcutta High Court.
Ends
