UAPA Trials Cannot Linger Endlessly, Day-To-Day Hearing Mandated U/S 19 NIA Act: J&K&L High Court
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has directed a Special Court to accord priority to a trial arising out of offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, observing that Parliament, through Section 19 of the National Investigation Agency Act, has specifically mandated day-to-day trials in such cases to ensure that prosecutions involving serious offences do not linger indefinitely.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while disposing of the petition, observed,
“The legislative intent behind Section 19 is clear and unambiguous. Parliament, while creating a special mechanism for trial of serious offences affecting sovereignty and integrity of the nation, simultaneously ensured that such prosecutions are not permitted to linger endlessly.”
The Court further held that,
“The mandate of day-to-day trial is intended to strike a balance between societal interest and individual liberty.”
The Court was hearing a petition filed by one Arif Billa Sheikh, who has remained in custody since 2020 in connection with FIR for offences under Sections 16, 18, 20 and 23 of the UAPA, Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act and Sections 307 and 427 IPC.
The petitioner sought a direction for time-bound conclusion of the trial, contending that despite filing of the charge-sheet in October 2020 and framing of charges in March 2021, the proceedings had not reached final adjudication.
Court's Observations:
The Court started by reiterating that the right to speedy trial has long been recognized as an integral component of Article 21 and extends to every stage of criminal prosecution, including investigation, inquiry and trial.
Examining the facts of the case, the Court noted that more than five years had elapsed since registration of the FIR and more than five years since filing of the charge-sheet, yet the trial remained pending. According to the Court, such delay causes prejudice not only by depriving an accused of liberty but also by subjecting him to prolonged uncertainty and mental agony.
A significant part of the judgment focused on Section 19 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008. Reproducing the provision, Justice Nargal noted that trials before Special Courts are required to be conducted on a day-to-day basis and must be given precedence over all other criminal proceedings pending against the accused in non-special courts.
The Court observed,
“... The legislative intent behind Section 19 is clear and unambiguous. Parliament, while creating a special mechanism for trial of serious offences affecting sovereignty and integrity of the nation, simultaneously ensured that such prosecutions are not permitted to linger endlessly. The mandate of day-to-day trial is intended to strike a balance between societal interest and individual liberty”
Justice Nargal emphasized that although offences under the UAPA are undoubtedly grave and involve issues concerning national security and public order, the seriousness of allegations cannot eclipse constitutional protections available to an accused.
The Court further observed that where trials under stringent enactments remain pending for years, the process itself risks becoming punitive. Balancing national security concerns with individual liberty, the Court held that constitutional courts are duty-bound to ensure that undertrial prisoners are not subjected to endless incarceration without timely adjudication.
Referring to the decisions in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency, the Court observed that prolonged incarceration coupled with delayed trial raises serious constitutional concerns even in prosecutions governed by stringent anti-terror laws.
The Court also remarked that delay in criminal trials weakens evidentiary value, affects witness recollection, erodes public confidence in the justice delivery system and ultimately defeats the objective of fair adjudication. According to the Court,
“Liberty once deprived without timely adjudication transforms the process itself into punishment, which is impermissible in law.”
Holding that the petitioner's grievance regarding delay in conclusion of trial was justified, the High Court found merit in the plea seeking expeditious disposal of the proceedings.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations, the Court directed the Trial Court/Special Court concerned to accord priority to the trial arising out of FIR No. 03/2020 and make all possible endeavours to conclude the proceedings expeditiously.
Case Title: Arif Billa Sheikh v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)
Appearances:
For Petitioner: Mr. Hussain Rashid Advocate