The Supreme Court has issued notice to Chief Secretaries of 17 States where more than 10 NIA trials are pending. The Court stressed the need for exclusive Special NIA Courts to reduce delays and strengthen judicial infrastructure.
The Supreme Court of India has sought responses from the Chief Secretaries of 17 States and Union Territories over the urgent need to establish exclusive Special NIA Courts, taking note of the growing pendency of trials investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and N V Anjaria was examining the larger issue of delay in NIA prosecutions across the country. The matter came up while the Court was hearing a bail plea related to an alleged ISIS member, but the Bench expanded its focus to the structural problems affecting NIA trials nationwide.
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhatti, appearing for the Union Government, informed the Court that the Centre has already framed norms to financially support States in setting up exclusive Special NIA Courts.
She stated that financial assistance of Rs. 1 crore each is being provided for recurring and non-recurring expenses incurred in establishing such courts. The assistance is given on a reimbursement basis and is subject to actual expenditure by the concerned States.
The Bench was informed that more than 10 NIA trials are pending in several States and UTs, including Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Gujarat, Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Manipur, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan and Telangana. Taking serious note of this backlog, the Supreme Court passed a clear direction:
“Let notice be issued to all the 17 states where more than 10 NIA trials are pending. Notice is to be sent to the respective Chief Secretaries of the States. The Advocate Generals of the above-mentioned states are directed to remain present in the Court, maybe personally or through online.”
The Court’s concern over delayed NIA trials had earlier surfaced while hearing a bail challenge in the case of Md Heydaitullah, who is accused of being linked to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The NIA has alleged that he was involved in radicalising youths through cyberspace and conspiring to establish Sharia law in India under the ISIS banner.
During those proceedings, the Chief Justice had expressed deep concern about systemic delays in handling NIA cases and the lack of sufficient judicial infrastructure. Emphasising the need for structural reform, the CJI had observed,
“The idea is how do you make a robust mechanism that none of them are required to come to the courts. That will happen when additional courts are set up.”
The Bench underlined that meaningful reform would require administrative clarity and firm commitment from authorities. The CJI had suggested that if a clear stand was taken by February 10 on whether mere sanction would be enough to operationalise new courts, the High Courts could proceed with recruitment and judicial appointments without further delay.
In view of the larger institutional concerns, the Supreme Court directed that the bail plea be listed on February 10, 2026, along with a pending suo motu case dealing with delays in NIA trials and issues relating to MP-MLA courts.
The background of the bail matter lies in a January 2025 decision of the Delhi High Court, which dismissed Md Heydaitullah’s appeal challenging the trial court’s refusal to grant him bail. The High Court Bench of Justice Pratibha M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma had examined the material collected by the NIA, including chats and digital evidence.
The NIA alleged that the appellant conspired to
“establish Sharia law in India under the flag of ISIS by waging Jihad”.
Referring to online chats recovered during the investigation, the High Court had made strong observations. It noted,
“it is not a case of passive support to a terrorist organisation, but rather the chats, as highlighted hereinabove, show that the Appellant was advocating Jihad in order to establish Khilafat (“Caliphate)”.
The High Court also pointed out that charges had not yet been framed by the trial court at that stage. It observed,
“Thus, in order to assess and find justifications for grant or non-grant of bail to the Appellant, the material collected and filed along with chargesheet by the NIA needs to be examined”.
Further, the Court recorded that the appellant had allegedly taken an oath (Bayath) in the name of Abu Bakr al Baghdadi and Abu al-Hasan al-Hashimi al-Qurashi, both recognised leaders of ISIS. According to the chargesheet, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi had announced the formation of a “caliphate” in June 2014.
After examining the chats and images retrieved from the accused’s mobile phone, the High Court had concluded,
“that the Appellant was not just a passive supporter of ISIS, but was determined to further its activities by influencing other individuals at various platforms”.
The Court further emphasised that ISIS is a known terrorist organisation and that
“the world at large knows about the activities of ISIS”.
The Supreme Court is now looking at the issue from a broader perspective. Beyond the individual bail matter, the focus has shifted to ensuring faster and more efficient disposal of NIA cases across India. By issuing notices to 17 States and calling their Advocate Generals to appear, the apex court has made it clear that improving judicial infrastructure in terror-related cases is now a priority.
The matter will next be taken up on February 10, 2026, when the Court is expected to examine both the bail plea and the larger structural issues concerning delays in NIA trials.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Aviation Rules
