Supreme Court seeks Centre's reply on special courts for swift trials

Saying it was imperative on the Centre and states to establish courts for the speedy trial of cases under special laws, the Supreme Court has sought their stand in two weeks.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh was acting on the bail plea of a Naxal sympathiser from Gadchiroli in Maharashtra. He was booked after 15 policemen of a quick response team were killed in a blast in the state.

"Additional solicitor general of India has referred to the affidavit filed by respondent 2 - National Investigation Agency. We are, however, of the view that when trials are to take place under special laws, it is imperative on the Union or States to establish specialised courts with adequate infrastructure for ensuring speedy trial, for achieving the legislative object of the statute," the bench said in its order of May 9.

ASG Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakre was, therefore, granted two weeks to obtain instructions on the matter as the bench posted the hearing on May 23.

The top court asked the Centre and Maharashtra government why couldn't they conduct a judicial impact assessment of the special statutes after enactment of the laws and said adequate judicial infrastructure was required for the speedy disposal of cases.

"We have been saying time and again that where are the judges and courts? How can you conduct an expeditious trial in serious cases if you burden the existing judges with additional cases under special statutes? I am very clear in my mind that if you want to prosecute under special laws, then first create adequate judicial infrastructure and appoint judges," Justice Kant said.

Thakre said a proposal on establishing special courts was sent to the government and was pending consideration but Justice Kant asked why was the state not providing a special court to decide sensitive cases--such as the one at hand--with significant ramifications.

Thakre then sought time to get back with instructions prompting the court to adjourn the matter.

The top court had previously noted due to delay in completion of trial, those accused in heinous offences took advantage of bail as trials couldn't go on indefinitely.

The top court was hearing a plea of one Kailash Ramchandani after the Bombay High Court rejected his bail plea on March 5, 2024.

He contended he had been in jail since 2019 and while charges hadn't been framed in the case so far, the co-accused had been granted bail.

The high court in its order recorded Ramchandani was booked under various sections of IPC, Arms Act, Maharashtra Police Act, MCOCA and UAPA in 2019 after 15 police personnel of the quick response team were killed in a blast at Kurkheda-Purada Road, Gadchiroli, while travelling in a vehicle on May 1, 2019.

The case was subsequently transferred to the National Investigation Agency which booked Ramchandani and others.

Ramchandani allegedly informed one of the co-accused about the police vehicle from one spot for the blast to be executed.

"It is evident that mere delay in the trial pertaining to grave offences, by itself cannot be a ground to enlarge an accused on bail, dehors the facts. We cannot be oblivious of the fact that 15 police personnel were killed in a mine blast, which took place on May 1, 2019," the high court ruled.

The order said the material placed by the prosecution on record prima facie indicated the complicity of the appellant in the conspiracy.

"The statements on record show that the appellant was in touch with the naxals. That he would visit 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," it added.