Speedy Completion of UAPA Trials

a Challenge, Says CJI Surya Kant

Report By Y-Trendz

New Delhi: Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant has repeatedly flagged the sluggish pace at which trials under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) move through India's courts, describing the goal of speedy completion as a persistent institutional challenge that demands urgent structural reform. Over the past several months, a bench headed by the CJI has pushed states and union territories to overhaul how anti-terror cases are heard, warning that the current system of shared, overburdened courtrooms is fundamentally incompatible with the promise of a fast-tracked trial.

The Core of the Problem

Speaking during hearings on the issue, CJI Kant pointed out that when a courtroom handling UAPA or NIA matters is also used for unrelated criminal trials, family court appeals and civil appeals on the same day, lawyers in terror cases routinely seek adjournments while the court remains occupied with other business — defeating the very purpose of a dedicated timeline. The Bench, which also includes Justice Joymalya Bagchi, has stressed that only genuine exclusivity — courts that hear nothing but UAPA, NDPS and similar special-statute cases — can realistically deliver on a one-year trial target.

The Court has underlined that exclusivity is the only mechanism capable of ensuring trials conclude within that one-year window, noting that in stringent laws like UAPA, where bail itself is restricted by statutory conditions, the right to a speedy trial effectively becomes the accused's only safeguard for liberty. This is a significant articulation, because UAPA's Section 43D(5) makes it difficult for courts to grant bail even when investigations and trials drag on for years, leaving undertrials in custody for extended periods without a conviction.

Directions to the States

In proceedings earlier this year, the Supreme Court asked 17 states, including Delhi, Gujarat and Maharashtra, to work towards ensuring that dedicated NIA courts complete UAPA trials within one year. The Bench suggested that states with more than ten pending cases set up dedicated NIA courts with presiding officers appointed in consultation with the concerned High Court Chief Justice, while acknowledging that some matters may take longer than a month but that, on average, disposing of roughly one case a month should be achievable given day-to-day hearings and a dedicated special public prosecutor.

The Court also took note of funding gaps flagged during the hearings. It observed that a large share of the central grant meant for building judicial infrastructure was going unused, or was being misallocated due to bureaucratic hurdles, and that several states were struggling with basic infrastructure shortages as a result. To address this, the Centre has committed to a one-time grant of Rs 1 crore for non-recurring infrastructure expenditure, along with an annual recurring grant of Rs 1 crore for each dedicated court.

Subsequently, the Court directed the 17 states and union territories to specifically identify and report how many exclusive courts would be required to ensure that UAPA trials are conducted on a day-to-day basis and completed "under all circumstances" within a year. Advocate Generals across states have since been given deadlines to submit comprehensive data on pending cases so the exact number of courts and prosecutors needed can be worked out.

A Broader Reform Push

The UAPA push fits into a wider agenda the CJI has pursued since taking office. Since being sworn in as the 53rd Chief Justice in November 2025, Surya Kant has spoken often about tackling the backlog choking Indian courts, from nearly 90,000 pending matters in the Supreme Court itself to years-long delays in trial courts. He has pointed to the use of artificial intelligence for case management, a revitalised research centre to identify causes of pendency, and investment in judicial infrastructure — including new court complexes — as complementary tools for faster, fairer justice, while cautioning that speed cannot come at the cost of reasoned adjudication.

The stakes in UAPA cases specifically have also been sharpened by recent judicial developments. A bench of the Supreme Court this year referred to a larger bench the question of how prolonged incarceration should weigh as a ground for bail in UAPA cases, after conflicting rulings — one denying bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, and another expressing reservations about that very approach. Separately, in individual bail matters, the Court has directed that specific UAPA trials be completed within a fixed period, such as two years, when accused persons have already spent years in custody without a real prospect of trial concluding.

What It Means Going Forward

Taken together, the CJI's remarks and the Court's directions reflect a recognition that speedy trial guarantees under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot remain aspirational in terror-related prosecutions, where statutory bail restrictions leave undertrials with few other protections. Whether the states can match the Supreme Court's ambition — building exclusive courtrooms, appointing dedicated prosecutors and judges, and actually clearing case backlogs within a year — will determine whether this latest push translates into real relief for thousands of undertrials currently caught in the system, or becomes another well-intentioned directive that struggles against ground-level resource and administrative constraints.