'Absurd timelines': Supreme Court questions pace of UAPA trials with 12-15 cases per court
The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed strong disapproval of the timelines proposed for trials under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, noting that with merely 12-15 cases assigned to each special UAPA court, such timelines were “absurd”. The observation came during a hearing on a bail plea filed by an individual arrested on September 22, 2022, for allegedly radicalising youth and being involved in violent activities.
A bench of Justices [Names not disclosed] was hearing arguments from the petitioner’s counsel, who contended that the trial had not progressed meaningfully despite the accused being in custody for over a year. The counsel pointed out that the special court had set an excessively long schedule for the completion of the trial, which would lead to prolonged detention without conviction.
Taking note of the submissions, the bench observed that each UAPA court in the country handles a limited number of cases—around 12 to 15. Given this manageable workload, the court said, the timelines proposed by the trial court were inexplicable and “absurd”. The bench remarked that if only a dozen or so cases are pending before a court, the trial should proceed with speed and urgency, not stretch over years.
The Supreme Court asked the concerned authorities to provide detailed data on the number of pending UAPA cases, the sanctioned strength of judges for special courts, and the actual number of presiding officers in position. The court indicated that this information would help it assess the systemic bottlenecks causing delays in terrorism-related trials.
The petitioner, whose identity is protected, was arrested two years ago on charges of spreading radical ideology among the youth and engaging in activities that allegedly threatened public order. His counsel argued that the charges were baseless and that the continued detention violated his fundamental rights, especially in light of the slow progress of the trial.
The Supreme Court’s intervention comes amid broader concerns about the functioning of special courts under the UAPA, which have been criticized for low conviction rates and prolonged pre-trial detention. Legal experts say that the court’s observation underscores the need for efficient case management and adequate infrastructure to ensure speedy justice.
The matter has been listed for further hearing after four weeks, during which the court expects to receive the requested data. The bench reiterated that the right to a speedy trial is a constitutional guarantee and that no exceptional law can override this basic right.
