Supreme Court Suggests Union Funding For Exclusive Courts Be Extended To UAPA Cases Handled By State Agencies

In the suo motu case concerning the creation of exclusive courts to tackle cases under special statutes like UAPA, etc., the Supreme Court proposed that the Union's decision to provide funding for the establishment of exclusive NIA Courts in States be extended to the UAPA cases being handled by the State agencies as well.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi raised the question to Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati (for Union), who sought some time to come back with instructions. ASG SG Sanjay also represented the Union.

The Court noted that in a State like Jharkhand, while the NIA cases are fewer than twenty, there are 700 odd UAPA cases being handled by the State police. While the State UAPA cases go to Principal Sessions Courts, which are designated as Special Courts, only the NIA cases go to the exclusive NIA Court, which will get the Central funding. The Court proposed that the funding be expanded to cover State cases as well.

To recap, the present suo motu case was taken up for the creation of special exclusive courts to tackle the pendency of trials in cases under statutes like UAPA, MCOCA, NDPS etc, which impose stringent conditions for bail. In March, the court called on 17 States/UTs to identify and report as to how many exclusive courts are required by them to ensure that trial in UAPA cases are conducted on a day-to-day basis and completed "under all circumstances" within 1 year.

On the said date, the 17 States/UTs agreed that on a pilot basis, keeping in view the commitment made by the Union in its office memorandum to contribute 1 cr (recurring) +1 cr (non-recurring) funding for establishment of each court, atleast 1 exclusive court may be established in each state/UT to deal with UAPA/NIA cases. The Court, on its part, ordered that a separate mechanism for evaluation of ACRs of Presiding Officers posted to the proposed NIA/UAPA courts be formulated in consultation with High Courts as they will not be able to earn units in the traditional manner.

Today, Advocate Generals of the 17 States/UTs appeared before the Court and the bench interacted with them on the issues involved. Broadly, they were suggested to take steps regarding two issues - (i) provision of adequate space and infrastructure for creation of the exclusive court(s) in their respective state/UT, and (ii) creation of additional posts/temporary addition to judicial cadre.

The bench emphasized that the proposed special courts shall be exclusively assigned UAPA cases, so the same can be concluded in a timebound manner (1 year). If however in a particular state/UT, there are not enough UAPA trials pending, NDPS cases can be assigned to the special court, it said. In this regard, CJI Kant pointed out that existing NIA and NDPS courts are given to handle cases under other laws as well, thereby overburdening the presiding judges and causing pendency.

CJI Kant also voiced an earlier sentiment by highlighting how Courts are constrained to release some accused on bail due to long pendency of trials even in serious cases under laws like UAPA, etc.

Ultimately, the bench asked the AGs to provide data as to how many trials under UAPA (whether conducted by NIA or state agency) and NDPS (whether conducted by state agency or NCB) are pending in their states/UTs, so it can be seen how many exclusive courts are required in every state/UT. It was also indicated that each exclusive court would be tasked with maximum 10-15 cases, keeping in mind the 1-year timeline.

During the submissions, Justice Bagchi conveyed to ASG Bhati that if the Union's funding policy can address the UAPA, not the NIA Act, then the scope can be broader and funding applicable to cases prosecuted by state agencies as well. In other words, UAPA cases prosecuted by the State Police, as well as the NDPS cases handled by the State agencies, can also be brought under the funding policy of the Union, and not just the cases handled by central agencies like the NIA, NCB etc.

In its order, the Court said that to give effect to the Union's memorandum, the states/UTs will have to provide the requisite infrastructure and appoint Special PPs for the state cases, while the Union will appoint SPPs for NIA cases. "The State governments, in consultation with High Courts, will also be required to make addition in the cadre strength of their respective higher judicial services to the extent of requirement of establishment of exclusive courts. Though, the courts shall be presided over by judicial officers preferably having experience of 5 years in such trials."

The Court also called for a status report on the decision to be taken regarding the Union's financial assistance for establishment of exclusive courts for conducting cases under NDPS Act.

Before parting, the Court further issued notice and to states/UTs other than the 17 referred to above, as the ambit of the exclusive courts was proposed to include cases prosecuted by state agencies as well. The AGs of these states/UTs were requested to appear and assist on the next date.

Case Title: IN RE: CREATION OF SPECIAL EXCLUSIVE COURTS Versus, SMW(Crl) No. 1/2026