The Supreme Court has called on the Centre and state governments to take urgent steps toward setting up designated courts for the trial of offences under special laws, stressing that such courts are essential for ensuring speedy justice. The apex court granted two weeks’ time for the Centre to clarify its position on the matter.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh made the observation while hearing the bail plea of Kailash Ramchandani, an alleged Naxal sympathiser from Gadchiroli, Maharashtra, who has been in custody since 2019. Ramchandani was arrested following the death of 15 policemen from a quick response team in an IED blast at Kurkheda-Purada Road, Gadchiroli, on May 1, 2019.
“Additional Solicitor General Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakre referred to the affidavit filed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). However, we are of the view that when trials are to take place under special laws, it is imperative on the Union and States to establish specialised courts with adequate infrastructure to achieve the legislative object of the statute,” the bench stated in its May 9 order.
Justice Kant strongly criticised the lack of judicial infrastructure, remarking, “We have been saying time and again, where are the judges and courts? How can expeditious trial in serious cases be conducted if the existing judges are burdened with additional cases under special statutes?”
The court suggested that the Centre and the Maharashtra government conduct a judicial impact assessment of special laws after enactment to ensure adequate infrastructure for speedy disposal of cases. Justice Kant pointedly questioned why the state had not yet provided a special court to hear sensitive matters such as the Gadchiroli case.
In response, ASG Thakre informed the bench that a proposal for the establishment of special courts had been sent to the government and was pending consideration. The court adjourned the hearing to May 23 after Thakre sought time to obtain further instructions.
The Supreme Court also noted past concerns where delays in trials under special laws led to accused individuals being granted bail due to the protracted nature of proceedings. The current case before the bench is an example, as Ramchandani has been incarcerated for nearly five years without charges being framed.
The Bombay High Court had earlier rejected Ramchandani’s bail plea on March 5, 2024, citing the severity of the offence. The court noted that although co-accused had been granted bail, the prosecution material prima facie indicated Ramchandani’s complicity in the conspiracy. The High Court held that Ramchandani had allegedly informed the co-accused about the movement of the police vehicle, thereby facilitating the execution of the deadly attack.
“The statements on record show that the appellant was in touch with the Naxals, visited the jungle, and had informed the co-accused of the passing of the police vehicle on the fateful day. Thus, we find that the appellant had knowingly facilitated the commission of a terrorist act,” the High Court order read.
The Supreme Court reiterated that while delays cannot be the sole ground for bail in grave offences, systemic measures must be taken to avoid such delays in the first place.
