SC asks Karnataka to provide infrastructure for special UAPA court

The Supreme Court of India has sharply criticized the Karnataka government for its handling of a Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) case involving a Popular Front of India (PFI) activist, describing the prosecution plan submitted by the state as "absurd as a fairytale." On Wednesday, a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, alongside Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, issued directives aimed at ensuring swift resolution of the case, emphasizing that no special court dealing with UAPA cases should handle more than 12 to 15 cases at once. The accused, Shahid Khan, has been in custody since September 22, 2022, charged with alleged involvement in radicalizing youth and participating in violent activities linked to the PFI, an organization designated as a terrorist entity by the Indian government. The court expressed concern over the prolonged duration of the trial, noting that the accused had already spent nearly four years in prison without a formal trial. During hearings on August 5, the court had requested the Karnataka government to submit a detailed prosecution plan outlining the number of protected witnesses to be examined and the timeframe for doing so. The state’s legal representative, Rooh-e-Hina Dua, indicated that the prosecution intended to examine three protected witnesses and 50 others, estimating that the process might take a year. The bench dismissed this estimate as indicative of a "lackadaisical approach" by the state, highlighting the inconsistency between the gravity of the charges and the sluggishness of the trial proceedings. Senior advocate Aditya Sondhi, representing the petitioner, pointed out that the high court had previously rejected the bail plea of Shahid Khan without adequately addressing the rights to liberty and a speedy trial. The Supreme Court reiterated the seriousness of the charges against the accused, directing the prosecution to complete the examination of the three protected witnesses within three months. It also urged all parties involved, prosecution, petitioner, and co-accused, to avoid repeatedly filing applications, which it deemed unproductive and detrimental to the trial’s progress. In addition to these directives, the court mandated the Karnataka government to provide the necessary infrastructure for an additional special court dedicated solely to UAPA cases. This includes creating an additional post in the Karnataka Higher Judicial Service, along with appropriate staffing and resources. The court emphasized that such infrastructure must be sanctioned within two weeks, after which the chief justice of the Karnataka High Court would assign a judicial officer to oversee the new court. The bench acknowledged the existing backlog in the current special court, which has approximately 97 pending trials. It stressed the importance of managing this workload efficiently, noting that each court should ideally handle no more than 12 to 15 cases. The court further criticized the trial court for issuing an overly lengthy order denying an interim bail application, suggesting that such decisions could be condensed into much shorter documents to conserve judicial time. The Supreme Court underscored the necessity of conducting trials on a daily basis to prevent indefinite delays. Justice Bagchi highlighted that the presence of witnesses should not be disrupted by interim bail applications, stating that no court in India sends back a witness simply because a bail petition has been filed. The court also emphasized that the examination of witnesses is a critical component of the trial and should proceed uninterrupted unless there are exceptional circumstances. With these instructions, the court aims to expedite the trial of Shahid Khan’s case, ensuring that the examination of key witnesses occurs promptly and that the trial concludes within a reasonable timeframe. Once the material evidence has been collected, the petitioner will be allowed to reapply for bail, with the court promising to evaluate the request based on its merits rather than previous rulings. The court’s focus remains on balancing the need for thorough legal proceedings with the imperative to uphold the rights of the accused to a timely trial.