The Supreme Court on Monday raised serious concerns over the functioning of special courts, observing that the system has effectively turned into “a mockery” because judges assigned to such courts are burdened with a mix of cases beyond their designated mandate.
The Court called for urgent structural reforms and sought detailed inputs from States on the number of additional courts required to address mounting pendency, particularly in cases under stringent laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS).
Bench highlights systemic strain
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi underscored that special courts are failing in their intended purpose because they are not functioning exclusively. Taking note of existing practices, the CJI remarked, “There are questions of liberty, right to life, etc. State writes to High Court Chief Justice that court is needed for SC/ST Act cases. Then another letter (is sent) asking for NIA Court. Same special court becomes the NIA court. Then (it also becomes the court dealing with) family cases. So the special court becomes a mockery.”
The Bench emphasised that courts designated for special statutes must not simultaneously handle routine civil or criminal matters. It indicated that ensuring exclusivity would be central to any reform framework.
Call for exclusive courts and infrastructure
Outlining a roadmap, the Court stressed that trials in such courts must proceed on a day-to-day basis. “Day-to-day trial has to take place in these courts. Special court has to be in adjoining, next building or closest to the place where Bar members are. Ideally, it should be in the same complex. It has to be one court,” the CJI said.
The Bench further noted that creating such a system would require expanded judicial capacity and logistical planning. “Then additional manpower will be needed. So we need trained and experienced judicial officers and there will be a temporary increase in higher judicial services cadre strength also,” CJI Kant added.
Hearing in suo motu case
The observations came during the hearing of a suo motu case titled ‘In Re: Creation of Special Exclusive Courts’, initiated earlier this year to monitor the establishment of dedicated courts for cases under special laws, including the UAPA. Previously, the Court had directed States to estimate staffing needs to ensure that trials in National Investigation Agency (NIA) courts are concluded within one year.
During Monday’s proceedings, Advocates General from multiple States appeared before the Bench. Counsel for Jharkhand informed the Court that 790 UAPA cases are currently pending in the State and that such matters are being handled by principal district judges.
Undertrial prisoners a key concern
The Bench pointed to this arrangement as a core reason for delays. “This (lack of judges tasked to exclusively hear UAPA cases) is what is creating the problem. Hardly they (UAPA accused) will be on bail,” the CJI observed.
Justice Bagchi clarified that the Court’s focus is not on assigning responsibility but on addressing the consequences of delay. “Just see how many are undertrials at the moment. That is our concern. Not the State or Centre…Do you know the burden of the principal district judge. Is the judge dealing with only UAPA?” he asked. When informed otherwise, he responded, “That is the problem.”
The Bench reiterated its intent to “sensitise” States so they can provide accurate data on pendency and judicial capacity.
State-wise variation and need assessment
Highlighting regional variations, the CJI noted, “Jharkhand is uniquely situated so more UAPA cases. Maharashtra has more MCOCA cases. Gujarat has more Gangster Act cases.” The Court indicated that its evolving mechanism would ensure courts function exclusively for specific categories of cases.
Referring to the scale of trials, he added, “‘Exclusive’ word we are using….for every 10 to 15 cases we need one court. So if there are 200 to 300 witnesses…then you imagine.”
Directions to states and centre’s support
The Court directed all States to provide details on the number of pending cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and UAPA, along with the number of additional courts required and infrastructure needs. It also acknowledged the practical limits of judicial officers.
“The presiding officer (judge in special courts) is also a human being. So within one year, you see how many trials can be completed. We have to also change criteria of ACR evaluation of such officers. You also need to give a special public prosecutor dealing with such a court,” the CJI said.
The Bench recorded that the Union government is willing to extend financial assistance. Appearing for the Centre, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati assisted the Court. As per an earlier memorandum dated January 7, the Centre has agreed to reimburse Rs 1 crore as non-recurring expenditure and Rs 1 crore annually as recurring support for States, subject to provision of land and buildings.
The matter is scheduled for further hearing in May.
