In Re: Creation Of Special Exclusive Courts (2026), Advocate General for the State of Bihar informed the Supreme Court that "there are sixteen cases pending under Section 11 of the NIA Act, and two Special Exclusive Courts have already been established to try the same." This submission is recorded in Court's 12-page long order dated September 7, 2026. On the previous occasion, Sanjay had appeared before the Court as the Additional Solicitor General of India, on behalf of the Union of India on March 24, 2026. Earlier, the Court's 15-page long order dated July 20, 2026 The status report with regard to Bihar stated that the Court of District & Additional Sessions Judge-XV, Patna has been designated as an Exclusive Court for trial of NIA cases vide Gazette Notification dated 8th January, 2026. The Central Government, vide letter dated 23.06.2026, has written to the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar seeking their consent/comments on the Hon’ble High Court of Patna’s letter dated 22.05.2026 vide which the consent of Hon’ble High Court was conveyed to designate the Court of District & Additional Sessions Judge-XXVI, Patna as Special Court exclusively for trial of NIA cases. Subsequent to the submission of July 2026, one more Special Exclusive Court has been created. The matter is listed for hearing on November 16, 2026.
The September 2026, order has recorded that with reference to the directions issued by the Court for the establishment of Exclusive Special Courts for trial of NDPS cases, "the Union of India has filed an affidavit, according to which a revised figure of 449 exclusive Courts have been identified to be established. The details of these Courts, State-wise and location-wise, have also been given in a tabulated form in the status report filed on behalf of the Union of India. That report and the said table are taken as part of this oral order. 4. The information given in the tabulated form further points out that 176 exclusive Courts are presently operational. 5. It seems to us that, owing to the current pendency of cases under the NDPS Act and an unfortunate alarming increase in offences under that Act on a pan-India basis, it is expedient and in the interest of justice that the requisite Courts, i.e., 449 exclusive NDPS Courts, are established at the earliest. We direct the Union of India and all the State Governments/Union Territory Administrations to take necessary steps for the purpose of providing/creating of infrastructure as well as appointment of necessary staff, so that such Courts shall be established as early as possible and preferably within six weeks."
Supreme Court is dealing with the issue of the establishment of exclusive Special Courts for the trial of criminal cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) as also under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), whether prosecuted by central agencies, like the National Investigation Agency (NIA) or the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) or by the State Police/Agencies. The Special Courts are required to be designated under Section 11 of the National Investigation Agency Act (NIA), 2008. In its 9-page long order dated April 20, 2026, the Court observed:"15. In the interest of completeness, we clarify that wherever this 8Court has referred to ‘NIA’ cases or ‘UAPA/NIA’ cases, the intention has been to include all the cases being tried under the UAPA, irrespective of which agency is prosecuting the same. Similarly, cases under the NDPS Act would also refer to all the criminal cases concerning offences under that statute. The parties and authorities shall furnish the necessary information, keeping in mind the broader scope of these proceedings."
The Court's subsequent 11-page long order dated May 8, 2026 observed: "The proceedings now stand focused on the creation/designation and operationalisation of exclusive Special Courts for expeditious trial of cases under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (in short, the 'NIA Act'), the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (in short, 'UAPA') and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, the 'NDPS Act'). 2. There are broadly two categories of trials under the NIA Act. The first category comprises trials before Courts of Session designated as Special Courts by the Central Government under Section 11 of the NIA Act, where the investigation/prosecution is principally conducted by the National Investigation Agency (in short, 'NIA'). The second category comprises trials before Courts of Session designated as Special Courts by the State Governments under Section 22 of the NIA Act, including scheduled offences/UAPA cases investigated and prosecuted by State agencies."
It added: "7. No category of cases other than cases triable before a Court designated under Section 11 of the NIA Act, and offences connected with such trials, shall be assigned to these Courts. The High Courts shall also ensure posting of dedicated Court staff substantially in terms of the staffing pattern noticed in the earlier orders. 8. The broad norm shall be one exclusive Special Court for every block of 10 to 15 pending trials. Thus, where the pendency under Section 11 of the NIA Act within the jurisdiction of a High Court exceeds 15 trials, at least two such Courts shall be operationalised; where it exceeds 25 trials, at least three such Courts shall be operationalised; and one additional Court shall be considered for every further block of 10 to 15 trials. These are minimum working norms and may be suitably adjusted by the High Court, after consulting the NIA and the State Government/Union Territory, having regard to the complexity of the cases, number of accused, number of witnesses and availability of infrastructure. 9. The aforesaid exclusive Special Courts under Section 11 of the NIA Act shall be made functional within one month from today. The Presiding Officers shall regulate their boards in such manner as they deem appropriate, but shall ensure that the trials assigned to them are taken up on a day-to-day basis. As far as practicable, ripe trials shall be listed in continuous blocks so that at least one such trial is brought to a conclusion every month, without compromising the rights of the accused, victims or witnesses and without diluting the requirements of a fair trial. 10. As regards trials under Section 22 of the NIA Act, UAPA cases prosecuted by State agencies, and other related trials, we direct the States/Union Territories and the Registrars General of the High Courts to furnish, in consultation with each other, a consolidated statement indicating: (i) the number of pending trials; (ii) the District and Court where each trial is pending; (iii) the age and present stage of each trial; (iv) the number of accused in custody; (v) the number of prosecution witnesses already examined and remaining; (vi) the availability or non-availability of court rooms and allied infrastructure; (vii) the number of exclusive Courts required; and (viii) the availability of dedicated Public Prosecutors. The said information shall be filed within four weeks."
The Office Report dated March 24, 2026 stated that the Court had directed the registration of a Suo Moto Writ Petition based on Order dated February 10, 2026 passed in Md. Heydaitullah vs. National Investigation Agency SLP(Crl.) No. 8799/2025 in pursuance of paragraph 3 of the Court's order dated December 16, 2025. Accordingly, In Re: Creation Of Special Exclusive Courts Suo Moto Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 1/2026 was registered.
In its 11-page long order dated 24 March, 2026, the Court's Division Bench observed:"8. It is against this backdrop that this Court, after taking cognizance of the prevailing situation, decided that the NIA Courts should exclusively deal with UAPA or other related trials and that such Presiding Officers should not be entrusted with any other cases. This will ensure that the Presiding Officers are able to take up the UAPA trials on a day-to-day basis. 9. Keeping this in mind, let the Union of India release the necessary grant-in-aid/financial assistance in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 07.01.2026 to the 17 States mentioned in paragraph 4 of this order. The learned Advocate Generals shall meet the Hon’ble Chief Justices of their respective High Courts, along with a copy of this order, and shall request that a Presiding Officer be posted in the NIA Court to whom no other cases except UAPA or related trials shall be entrusted. 10. It goes without saying that such a recourse shall be required to be followed only in those States where such an initiative has not already been taken. The State Governments, in consultation with the High Courts, will meanwhile make additions to the existing cadre of the Higher Judicial Services to the extent that the State may require additional Courts to deal with NIA/UAPA matters. The recruitment to the newly created posts shall be made by the High Courts in the next immediate selection process. It is clarified that there shall not be a separate cadre of Presiding Officers of the NIA/UAPA Courts, and that the Judicial Officers, who have fair and reasonable experience of conducting criminal trials, shall be posted as the Presiding Officers of those Courts. Similarly, the High Courts will take necessary steps to appoint the Court Staff as per the pattern given in paragraph 2 of this order. 11. Knowing well the method of evaluation of the Annual Confidential Reports of the Judicial Officers, we clarify that a separate mechanism shall be prescribed in consultation with the High Courts for evaluation of the Confidential Reports of the Presiding Officers of the NIA/UAPA Courts, as they will not be able to earn units in the traditional manner. For this purpose, appropriate directions will be issued by a Three-Judge Bench in the matter pertaining to the judicial services.12. The State Governments shall, meanwhile, identify how many separate exclusive NIA/UAPA Courts are required to be established by them to conduct the trials in UAPA or related matters on a day- to-day basis, with a categorical commitment that each trial, in all circumstances, shall be completed within one year. After such evaluation, the viewpoint of the State Governments shall be placed on record within four weeks. 13. The National Investigating Agency/CBI/any other Central or State Agency will ensure that one dedicated Public Prosecutor for each Court is made available, and if there are insufficient prosecutors available in the regular cadre, the Union of India and the State Governments are directed to notify Special Public Prosecutors for this purpose in consultation with the respective High Courts."
Meanwhile, in a case related to special courts/special laws, Patna High Court's Full Bench comprising of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Jitendra Kumar and Dr. Anshuman have passed an order dated May 5, 2026, wherein, Advocate Dr. Gopal Krishna, Amicus Curiae in the case has submitted his note on September 16, 2026 vide AO Number 967051/ 2026. The Court has asked the Advocate General to assist the Court. The order reads:"10. Considering the importance of the matter, in which the scope of reference itself has arisen for consideration apart from the questions which have been referred to, we would also request learned Advocate General to assist this Court."
No comments:
Post a Comment