The Supreme Court stressed the urgent need for dedicated NIA courts to ensure speedy trials in heinous offences. The bench warned that hardened criminals misuse delays to force bail.
New Delhi: On Sep 4, the Supreme Court on Thursday highlighted the urgent need for dedicated National Investigation Agency (NIA) courts to ensure speedy trials of heinous offences. The court observed that hardened criminals often misuse legal loopholes to delay justice and force courts to release them on bail.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi made the observation while hearing submissions from Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati, who informed the court that the Centre was already holding consultations with states to set up such courts.
Bhati told the bench,
“Soon a decision will be made in this regard,”
The judges responded that completing trials in a fixed time frame for heinous crimes would not only serve the interests of society but also act as a deterrent for habitual offenders.
The bench remarked,
“It’s an opportunity for you to incentivise..sometimes these hardened criminals tend to hijack the entire justice system and not allow conclusion of the trial, as a result the courts are under compulsion to grant them bail on ground of delay,”
Bhati further explained that the states also need to be on board since the power to establish such courts rests with them. However, Justice Surya Kant noted that the Centre can take the lead by committing financial support and seeking the consent of high courts.
The ASG also placed details of a pending proposal before the court: allocation of Rs 1 crore as non-recurring expenses and Rs 60 lakh as recurring expenditure, while states would provide land and buildings for the special NIA courts.
Taking note of the submissions, the bench posted the matter for further hearing on October 14.
The issue first came into sharp focus on July 18, when the Supreme Court criticized both the Centre and the Maharashtra government for their delay in setting up special courts under the NIA Act and other similar statutes.
At that time, the court expressed concern that without dedicated courts and infrastructure, trial delays would inevitably force the judiciary to grant bail to accused persons.
The bench had cautioned: if authorities failed to establish such courts, it would have no option but to release accused persons on bail, as there would be
“no effective mechanism to conclude the trial in a time bound manner.”
The court also told the Maharashtra government that simply designating existing courts as NIA courts was not a solution.
It stressed that this amounted to “coercing the high court to relabel them,” which would harm undertrials and prisoners from weaker sections of society who are already waiting long periods for justice.
The observations were made during the bail plea hearing of Kailash Ramchandani, a Naxal sympathiser from Gadchiroli, Maharashtra. He was arrested in connection with a 2019 incident in which 15 policemen from a quick response team were killed in an IED blast.
The Supreme Court recalled its earlier order dated March 17, when it had rejected Ramchandani’s bail plea despite the long delay in trial proceedings.
The court had also clearly warned that if both the Centre and state failed to set up proper NIA courts, his plea for bail would be reconsidered.
The Maharashtra government had earlier told the bench that a special NIA court had been designated in Mumbai with the approval of the High Court. However, this explanation did not satisfy the bench.
The judges pointedly asked the state about the heavy workload of the judge who was already presiding over other cases when the court was redesignated as an NIA court.
Case Title:
KAILASH RAMCHANDANI v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, SLP(Crl) No. 4276/2025
Click Here To Read More Reports On NIA
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
