'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 SupportA 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 CaseThe 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 SCThe 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 ...

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

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

The Court issued various directions to the High Courts to ensure expeditious trial of cases under Acts imposing reverse burden of proof on the accused.

Tags