SUPREME COURT DIRECTS HIGH COURTS AND STATES TO FAST-TRACK UAPA TRIALS
The Supreme Court of India has issued a significant direction to all High Courts and State governments to ensure expeditious disposal of cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The Court stressed that terrorism-related matters must be handled with “efficacy and expediency,” especially considering the stringent nature of the law and the increasing pendency of cases.
The directions were delivered by a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh while hearing the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) appeal in the 2010 Jnaneshwari Express derailment case, which claimed 148 lives and injured over 170 passengers.
BACKGROUND: THE 2010 JNANESHWARI EXPRESS CASE
The case relates to the derailment of the Jnaneshwari Express in West Bengal, allegedly caused by sabotage due to opposition to joint police-paramilitary operations against Maoist groups in the region. Eighteen accused individuals were granted bail by the Calcutta High Court, a decision challenged by the CBI before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have granted bail in such a grave case involving mass casualties and potential death-penalty offences. However, the Court chose not to cancel the bail due to:
-
A 15-year delay in trial.
-
The accused having spent almost 12 years in custody.
-
No violations of bail conditions since release.
-
Failure of the prosecution to show any supervening circumstances for re-incarceration.
-
Continued delay in recording evidence, with 28 witnesses still unexamined.
SUPREME COURT’S OBSERVATIONS ON PENDING UAPA CASES
Citing the NCRB’s Crime in India 2023 report, the Court noted that:
-
3,949 UAPA cases are pending trial.
-
4,794 UAPA cases are pending investigation.
The Court termed this backlog “systemically alarming,” particularly because UAPA contains provisions of a reverse burden of proof, which heightens the risk of prolonged undertrial detention without fair opportunity for defence preparation.
COURT’S DIRECTIONS TO HIGH COURTS AND STATE GOVERNMENTS
The Supreme Court issued a comprehensive set of directions to address systemic delays in UAPA cases:
1. High Courts to Ascertain Pendency
High Courts must determine:
-
Total pendency of UAPA and similar reverse-burden cases.
-
Whether there are sufficient designated Special Courts or Sessions Courts for these cases.
-
Whether judicial staffing is adequate to avoid unnecessary adjournments.
2. Prioritisation of Oldest Cases
Courts dealing with UAPA matters must:
-
Prioritise the oldest cases first.
-
Expedite cases pending for more than five years.
-
Avoid routine adjournments.
-
Conduct day-to-day hearings wherever possible.
3. Legal Representation for Undertrials
State Legal Services Authorities must ensure:
-
Every undertrial is informed of their right to legal representation.
-
Immediate appointment of legal-aid counsel.
-
No accused suffers prolonged incarceration due to lack of legal assistance.
4. Monitoring Mechanism
High Courts must:
-
Seek periodic reports from trial courts.
-
Address administrative obstacles causing delays.
-
Ensure compliance with the mandate of expeditious trials.
COURT’S OBSERVATIONS ON REVERSE BURDEN UNDER UAPA
The bench highlighted that UAPA imposes a reverse burden, meaning:
-
Once the prosecution establishes foundational facts,
-
A presumption of guilt applies,
-
And the accused must rebut the presumption to prove innocence.
The Court stated that such a system becomes oppressive if trials are indefinitely delayed, leaving undertrials incarcerated for years without evidence access, witnesses, or effective counsel.
The Court stressed:
“A constitutional democracy does not legitimise burdens by simply declaring them; it must ensure those burdened are equipped to bear them.”
ANALYSIS OF THE HIGH COURT’S BAIL ORDER IN THE JNANESHWARI CASE
The Supreme Court held that the Calcutta High Court:
-
Relied too heavily on Article 21 jurisprudence on the right to a speedy trial.
-
Failed to account for the seriousness of the terrorist act.
-
Did not consider the impact on national security.
-
Overlooked that UAPA offences may attract the death penalty and fall outside the protection of Section 436A CrPC.
Despite identifying these errors, the Supreme Court refrained from cancelling the bail due to the prolonged delay, long incarceration already suffered, and lack of misuse of bail.
The trial judge has been directed to conduct day-to-day hearings and submit progress reports every four weeks to the administrative judge of the Calcutta High Court.
RELEVANT STATUTES AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
Key provisions relevant to the case include:
-
Section 15 – Definition of terrorist act.
-
Section 16 – Punishment for terrorist act, including possibility of death penalty.
-
Section 43D(5) – Stringent conditions for bail; presumption against the accused if accusations are prima facie true.
-
Section 43E – Reverse burden of proof, shifting obligation to the accused.
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
-
Section 436A – Release of undertrial prisoners after serving half of maximum sentence (not applicable to death-penalty offences).
-
Section 309 – Mandates day-to-day trials once examination of witnesses begins.
-
Sections 167, 173 – Deal with investigation timelines.
Constitutional Provisions
-
Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty; includes right to speedy trial.
-
Article 22 – Rights of arrested individuals.
-
Article 14 – Equality before law; cannot be violated by arbitrary delays.
-
Article 39A – Free legal aid to ensure justice is not denied due to economic disability.
IMPORTANT JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS
1. Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021)
Held that constitutional courts may grant bail despite Section 43D(5) UAPA if undertrials suffer prolonged incarceration.
2. Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India (1996)
Directed special procedures and fast-track mechanisms for TADA cases suffering long delays.
3. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994)
Upheld constitutionality of anti-terror provisions but emphasised robust procedural safeguards.
4. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979)
Established the fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21.
5. Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1992)
Laid out principles for evaluating violations of speedy-trial rights.
CONCLUSION: A SIGNIFICANT STEP TOWARDS BALANCING SECURITY AND LIBERTY
The Supreme Court’s order marks a crucial moment in India’s anti-terror legal framework. While acknowledging the severity of UAPA offences, the Court emphasised that justice must not be sacrificed at the altar of delay.
The ruling seeks to:
-
Restore procedural balance.
-
Prevent misuse of prolonged incarceration.
-
Improve judicial efficiency.
-
Protect constitutional rights even in terrorism cases.
The directions will have far-reaching implications for thousands of pending UAPA matters and may reshape court administration practices across India.

Comments
Post a Comment