SC mulls Delhi-NCR court for grave crimes

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that organised offenders frequently move across cities within NCR.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday initiated suo motu proceedings to examine the need for consolidating trials in terror and other grave offences before a single court in the Delhi-NCR, warning that gaps in the existing legal architecture were allowing “hardened criminals” to exploit jurisdictional overlaps and delay trials to their advantage.

(Shutterstock)

Taking cognisance on its own motion, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that organised offenders frequently move across cities within the National Capital Region (NCR) -- sometimes just a few kilometres apart, to trigger jurisdictional complications, resulting in fragmented investigations, multiple courts assuming jurisdiction and prolonged trials.

“The eventual benefit goes to the hardened criminals, which may not be in the interest of society or the nation,” noted the bench in its order, stressing that the issue warranted serious consideration, including whether effective legislation was required to ensure optimal use of the existing legal framework.

The court’s suo motu intervention is significant as it marks a shift from adjudicating individual bail pleas to addressing a systemic flaw affecting the prosecution of terror, organised crime and other serious offences, where delay itself becomes a tactical advantage for accused persons.

During the hearing, the bench questioned why Parliament had not enacted a jurisdictional framework for the NCR similar to the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), which grants police special powers like surveillance and intercepting digital communications to tackle hardened criminals or syndicates. “These hardened criminals commit a crime in Delhi, move to Gurugram, then to Ghaziabad and back to Delhi. Why cannot there be a legislation which handles the jurisdictional aspect like MCOCA?” the court asked.

When Additional Solicitor General SD Sanjay pointed out that MCOCA was applicable to Delhi, the bench pressed further, asking why a law could not be crafted to cover the entire NCR. It cited scenarios where offences occur near inter-state borders and questioned why the law could not provide that a designated court in Delhi would retain jurisdiction in such cases.

“This is a legislative exercise. You should apply your mind to these issues,” the bench told the law officers, indicating that the problem could not be left to ad hoc judicial solutions.

The court also flagged the paradox of different special courts operating in close proximity without coordination. It noted that an NIA court could be located in Delhi, a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court in Noida and another special court in Gurugram, even when cases are interconnected. “Why should hardened criminals have advantages of jurisdiction?” asked the bench, suggesting a fair distribution of work across NCR courts while ensuring continuity of trials.

The bench pointed to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act as a possible template, noting that it already provides for supervening powers where multiple FIRs across states are involved. The bench suggested that such a mechanism could be explored for organised crime cases as well, allowing a single agency and court to take over investigations and trials comprehensively.

In its order, the court recorded that in grave offences under central penal laws, organised criminals often commit offences in one state and move to another, creating uncertainty over which court or agency should take cognisance. This jurisdictional confusion, it noted, itself becomes an impediment to prompt investigation and trial.

Alongside the broader jurisdictional issue, the court reviewed progress on setting up exclusive courts for special statutes, an issue it has been monitoring in connected proceedings. ASG Sanjay informed the bench that a decision had been taken to establish 16 additional courts for NDPS cases in Delhi, which have been identified and are expected to become functional within three months.

Appearing for the Centre, ASG Aishwarya Bhati said steps had also been taken to set up additional NIA courts, with the Union home secretary having convened meetings and budgetary allocations of ₹1 crore each for recurring and non-recurring expenses being made.

The bench, however, cautioned against viewing the issue through a Delhi-centric lens. “Think in terms of the entire country. These courts cannot be confined to Delhi,” it said, while proposing that such courts should function as dedicated special courts or tribunals dealing exclusively with cases under special statutes.

Drawing an analogy, the court described these courts as “emergency wards in a hospital”, emphasising that NIA and similar cases must be heard continuously, from start to finish, without being burdened by other categories of cases. It added that judicial officers presiding over such courts should not be assessed on the basis of disposal numbers, given the complexity and sensitivity of the matters involved.

The bench made it clear that it did not approve of any suggestion that states should simply take up the matter with high courts without central coordination. “Coordinated efforts will have to be made by all stakeholders,” it said, while allowing Delhi to serve as a pilot project, provided the model was eventually implemented on a pan-India basis.

In its order on additional courts, the court said it hoped and expected that all authorities would work in tandem to set up exclusive courts for special statutes, and posted the matter after four weeks to receive a status update.

The issue has been engaging the court’s attention for months. In November, the Supreme Court had underscored that heinous offences were crimes against the nation and should ideally conclude within six months, warning that prolonged trials inevitably lead to bail for hardened offenders. It had then directed the Centre to come up with a concrete action plan for setting up exclusive courts, even suggesting round-the-clock hearings if required.

Ends