The Supreme Court has ordered the Karnataka government to establish an additional special court to conduct day-to-day trials for cases under the Unlawful Activities Act, stating that trial proceedings cannot be allowed to drag on for years.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana gave the state two weeks to grant all required sanctions. The directions require the immediate creation of a post in the Karnataka Higher Judicial Service, alongside necessary supporting staff and court infrastructure aligned with High Court standards.
Once the sanctions are finalized, the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court will assign a judicial officer to head the dedicated tribunal, which will focus exclusively on handling Unlawful Activities Act matters on a daily basis.
Strict Three-Month Timeline Fixed For Key Testimony
The Supreme Court issued these directives while hearing a petition filed by Shahid Khan, an accused in a Popular Front of India conspiracy case. Khan’s defense counsel, Aditya Sondhi, informed the bench that his client had been detained for almost four years and raised the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21. Sondhi pointed out that nine co-accused facing similar allegations under the Indian Penal Code had already been granted bail, whereas Khan’s single interim bail plea following the death of his father-in-law was turned down.
The apex court ordered that Khan’s case be transferred to the newly formed special court. The presiding judge has been instructed to record crucial prosecution evidence within a three-month deadline, beginning with three protected witnesses before moving to other vital witnesses.
Although the prosecution proposed calling 707 witnesses in the case, the court noted that only about 50 were material. The bench ruled that Khan may submit a fresh bail application once the key testimony is recorded, which must be evaluated on its own merits without influence from previous rejection orders.
Concerns Raised Over Backlogs And Prolonged Orders
State representatives cited heavy workloads to explain delays, revealing that the existing special court was managing roughly 97 pending trials and that frequent interim bail pleas consumed significant court time.
Responding to the backlog, the bench stressed that earlier judicial directives capping special court caseloads at 12 to 15 cases must be strictly implemented. Justice Bagchi highlighted that witness examinations are integral to the trial process and should not be postponed simply because an interim bail petition has been submitted.
Chief Justice Kant also admonished lower courts for spending excessive time on brief procedural matters, pointing to a 12-page trial court order denying interim bail that could have been resolved in a single page. He noted that drafting unnecessarily long orders wastes valuable judicial hours that should instead be spent conducting trials.
