'If State Presumes Guilt, Speedy Trial Also Be Ensured' : Supreme Court Flags UAPA Trials' Delay; Asks HCs To Monitor Pending Cases

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued significant directions to all High Courts to examine the status of pending trials under the statutes such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, where the burden of proof is reversed on the accused.

The Court has also asked the High Court Chief Justices to ascertain the number of Special Courts designated to try these offences, and the appointments of Special Public Prosecutors. Cases pending over five years have been directed to be given special focus, by ordering a day-to-day trial.

The Court passed these general directions while ruling on appeals filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation challenging the bail granted by the Calcutta High Court in the 2010 Jnaneshwari Express derailment case. Although the Court found that the Calcutta High Court erred in granting bail to the accused, it declined to cancel their liberty at this stage, given the long passage of time and absence of misuse of bail.

The judgment, by a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, expressed that when the statute imposes a reverse burden, then the State must also ensure that the trial is expedited.

"A constitutional democracy does not legitimise burdens by simply declaring them; it must ensure that those burdened are meaningfully equipped to bear them, even those who are accused of the worst offences imaginable. If the State, in spite of all its might presumes guilt, then the same State must also, with the employment of all the resources at its command, create pathways through which the accused can reclaim their innocence."

Reverse Burden Under UAPA Requires Systemic Support

A substantial portion of the judgment authored by Justice Karol examines the implications of the reverse burden of proof under Section 43E of the UAPA. The Court noted that undertrials in such cases, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, face formidable obstacles in rebutting presumptions when they are incarcerated, with limited access to evidence or legal resources.

"Delay is an un-ignorable reality of the Indian criminal adjudication system which on its own raises significant issues, but when this delay is in cases such as the UAPA, where a reverse burden of proof is in place, it acquires a qualitatively different, and more insidious, character. Courts, bound by legislative intent and statutory language, ask for, even before the trial begins, the accused to be able to establish preliminarily, that they will be able to rebut the presumption against them. This doctrinal inversion becomes all the more pernicious on account of procedural delays and very liberty of a person becomes hostage to clogged dockets, overworked judges, a lax prosecution, repeated adjournments by members of the bar and much more. 

The institutions of justice must, therefore, act not as passive observers but as active guarantors of fairness: ensuring real access to counsel, enabling effective preparation of defence, and preventing the presumption from hardening into an irreversible verdict long before the trial ends. For if the system imposes an extraordinary burden yet denies the tools to discharge it, the promise of constitutionalism fades into symbolism. Ultimately, a democracy is judged not by how it treats the unquestionably innocent, but by how it safeguards the rights of those it suspects. In that moral balance, the justice system must ensure that even under a reverse burden regime, the accused is not abandoned to the weight of presumptive guilt but supported in the pursuit of truth and justice."

Background of the Case

The appeals were filed by the CBI challenging orders of the Calcutta High Court granting bail to several accused linked to the derailment of the Jnaneshwari Express on 28 May 2010, which resulted in 148 deaths and injuries to 170 persons. The prosecution alleges that the accused, connected to Maoist groups, conspired to remove pandrol clips from railway tracks to create terror and force the State to withdraw joint security forces from the region. Trial began long ago, and as of date, 176 of the 204 witnesses have been examined.

The High Court had granted bail primarily on the ground of long incarceration and applied Section 436A CrPC to hold that the accused had undergone more than half the maximum possible sentence. The Supreme Court held this approach incorrect because Section 436A does not apply to offences where death is a possible punishment, such as Section 302 IPC and Section 16 UAPA.

Article 21 Cannot Be The Sole Basis In National Security Offences, Says SC

The bench observed that the High Court relied on Article 21 jurisprudence on speedy trial to release the accused. The Supreme Court held that while Article 21 rights must be protected, they cannot be the sole consideration in cases involving threats to national security and sovereignty. Courts must balance the individual's liberty with the gravity of the alleged act and its impact on public order.

At the same time, the Court stressed that undertrials cannot be left languishing in jail for years when trials fail to progress. It highlighted that despite the seriousness of the charges, the accused had already spent nearly 12 years in custody before being granted bail.

While observing that the High Court “ought not to have granted bail” given the catastrophic nature of the incident and the alleged motive, the Supreme Court held that interference at this stage would not serve any purpose. The accused have been on bail for more than three years without any complaint of absconding, witness intimidation or delay attributable to them.

The Court also noted that the appeals against bail were filed in 2023, but the matter came up for substantive hearing only in 2025. The CBI also

The Court issued specific directions to the trial court to expedite the trial in the case, avoiding adjournments and conducting the proceedings on a day-to-day basis. The Administrative Judge of the High Court must seek progress reports every four weeks.

Systemic Directions To High Courts In All UAPA Matters

The Court relied on NCRB's Crimes in India Report 2023 showing 3,949 UAPA cases pending trial and 4,794 pending investigation to underline the magnitude of delay.

It asked all Chief Justices of High Courts to:

(a) to examine the number of cases pending within their States under laws such as the UAPA, posing a reverse burden of proof on the accused;

(b) to ascertain the number of special courts designated to try the said offences, and if special courts have not been designated, the number of Sessions courts dealing with matters under these legislations and to take up the matter with the appropriate authority if it is found that they are not sufficient;

(c) to discern, whether posting of judicial officers in these courts as also staffing is sufficient, thereby foreclosing a ground for delay and adjournment, and if not, then suitable order for posting be issued expeditiously;

Further, it was directed:

a) that the list prepared in accordance with (a) shall be organised in order of case registered, to the extent possible and permissible, from the earliest to latest. Requisite directions be issued to the special courts/sessions courts to take up the matters registered earliest, first, unless otherwise warranted.

(b) In consultation with the appropriate authority, the High Court to ascertain the position with respect to appointment/allotment of prosecutors/special public prosecutors, as may be applicable, to ensure that the matters, once taken up, are not further delayed on that count;

(c) For those cases that have been pending for more than five years, the concerned court be directed to take stock of the situation as and when they are taken up, record detailed order taking note of the previous reasons for adjournment if available, refrain from granting adjournments on routine requests and take up the matter on a day-to-day basis.

(d) The High Court concerned will periodically, seek reports from the concerned Courts dealing with these matters and take up issues that may be confronting the said courts, on the administrative side so as to ensure smooth functioning.

Directions On Legal Representation For Undertrials

The Court directed State Legal Services Authorities to ensure that every UAPA undertrial is made aware of their right to legal representation and that assignments to legal-aid counsel are made promptly.

The judgment has been directed to be transmitted to the Registrar Generals of all High Courts.

Case : Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dayamoy Mahato etc

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1196

Click here to read the judgment