The Supreme Court of India said special courts are losing purpose as judges handle multiple case types, causing delays. It stressed that exclusive courts and dedicated judges are needed to ensure faster trials and protect undertrials’ rights.
The Supreme Court of India on Monday made it clear that judges appointed in special courts for handling cases under specific laws must focus only on those cases and should not be given regular civil or criminal matters. The Court stressed that mixing both types of work defeats the entire purpose of setting up special courts.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi took serious note of the current situation where judges of special courts are handling multiple types of cases. According to the Court, this practice is leading to delays and is undermining the efficiency of the justice system.
The Court observed that the system of special courts is not functioning as intended because these courts are being overloaded with work beyond their designated purpose. Highlighting the issue, the CJI said,
“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 emphasized the urgent need for reforms to ensure that special courts work effectively and deliver speedy justice. The CJI further stated,
“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. 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,”
The Court was hearing a suo motu case titled In Re: Creation of Special Exclusive Courts, initiated earlier this year to address delays in criminal trials under special laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The aim is to ensure that such cases are decided within a reasonable time frame.
ALSO READ: Bombay High Court Urges Maha Govt to Act Fast: “Shortage of Staff Crippling the Court”
During the hearing, the Court reviewed data shared by different States regarding pending cases. The counsel for Jharkhand informed the Court that around 790 UAPA cases are currently pending in the State, and these matters are being handled by principal district judges who also deal with other cases.
Reacting to this, the CJI pointed out the core issue and remarked,
“This (lack of judges tasked to hear UAPA cases exclusively) is what is creating the problem. Hardly they (UAPA accused) will be on bail,”
Justice Bagchi also highlighted that the Court’s concern is not about blaming governments but about the large number of undertrial prisoners stuck in jail due to delays. He said,
“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?”
When the State counsel replied that judges were not exclusively handling UAPA cases, Justice Bagchi responded,
“That is the problem,”
The Bench further clarified that its intention is to gather accurate data and improve the system. The CJI stated,
“We wanted to sensitise you all, so that you can tell us how many cases are pending and how many will be dealt with,”
The Court also discussed how different States face different types of cases under special laws. For instance, Jharkhand has more UAPA cases, Maharashtra deals with more MCOCA cases, and Gujarat has a higher number of Gangster Act cases. Emphasizing the need for exclusive courts, the CJI said,
“Jharkhand is uniquely situated so more UAPA cases. Maharashtra has more MCOCA cases. Gujarat has more Gangster Act cases. The mechanism we are evolving so that courts deal with exclusively with such cases. ‘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,”
The Court directed all States to provide detailed information on the number of cases pending under special laws such as UAPA and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). States have also been asked to specify the number of additional special courts required and the infrastructure needed to support them.
While pushing for faster trials, the Court also acknowledged the limitations faced by judges. The CJI remarked,
“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 Bench also took note of the Central government’s willingness to support the initiative financially. The CJI observed,
“Centre says they will give funds for recurring expenditure as well,”
The Court referred to an earlier government memo that provides financial assistance to States for establishing special courts. As per the order, the Centre will reimburse Rs 1 crore as non-recurring expenditure and also provide ₹1 crore annually for recurring expenses, provided States arrange land and buildings for these courts.
The matter will now be taken up for further hearing in May, as the Court continues to monitor the progress in setting up exclusive special courts aimed at ensuring speedy trials and reducing the burden on the justice system.
Case Title:
In Re: Creation of Special Exclusive Courts
Click Here to Read More On Overburdened Judges
