Court of Sessions Can Try UAPA Cases: Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction in Absence of Designated Special Courts

 Court of Sessions Can Try UAPA Cases: Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction in Absence of Designated Special Courts

(image source: only ias)

The Supreme Court of India recently issued a significant judgment clarifying the jurisdiction for trying cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) when a state hasn't designated a special court. The verdict in the case titled  State of Maharashtra vs. Pradeep Suresh Warke & Ors settled a question that had potential implications for ongoing UAPA trials across the country.

Understanding the NIA Act and UAPA

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008, established the NIA, a central agency empowered to investigate and prosecute certain heinous crimes, including those falling under the UAPA. The UAPA is a legislation aimed at preventing unlawful activities, including terrorism and secessionist movements.

The Central Government and Special Courts

Section 6 of the NIA Act empowers the Central Government to take over the investigation of certain offenses, including those under the UAPA. When the NIA investigates a UAPA case, Section 11 of the Act mandates the Central Government to constitute special courts for trying these "scheduled offenses." These special courts have exclusive jurisdiction over NIA-investigated UAPA cases.

State Police Investigations and Jurisdictional Confusion

However, not all UAPA cases are investigated by the NIA. State police forces can also investigate UAPA offenses. The question arises: which court has jurisdiction to try such cases if the state government hasn't designated a special court under the NIA Act?

The High Court's View and the Appeal

In the present case, the Maharashtra High Court held that even when investigated by the state police, UAPA cases fall exclusively under the purview of special courts designated under the NIA Act. The state government challenged this interpretation before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court's Clarification: Court of Sessions Steps In

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous verdict, clarified that in the absence of a designated special court by the state government, the Court of Sessions of the division where the offense is committed has the jurisdiction to try UAPA cases investigated by the state police.

The Court relied on Section 22 of the NIA Act, which lays down provisions for situations where a state government hasn't set up special courts. Subsection (1) of Section 22 empowers the state government to designate existing Sessions Courts as special courts for trying NIA-investigated offenses. Subsection (3) crucially states that "until a Special Court is constituted" under subsection (1), the Court of Sessions has the jurisdiction to try offenses punishable under the UAPA investigated by agencies other than the NIA.

The Court emphasized the clear language of Section 22(3), stating that it unambiguously grants jurisdiction to the Court of Sessions when a special court isn't designated. This ensures that there's no delay in trying UAPA cases due to the absence of a special court.

Impact of the Judgment

The Supreme Court's judgment has several important implications:

• Clarity on Jurisdiction: It removes ambiguity regarding the forum for trying state-investigated UAPA cases. This streamlines the judicial process and avoids jurisdictional disputes.
• Ensuring Speedy Trials: By allowing Court of Sessions to handle such cases, the judgment ensures that trials can proceed without waiting for the designation of special courts. This is crucial considering the seriousness of UAPA offenses.
• Focus on NIA's Expertise: The judgment reinforces the role of the NIA in investigating complex cases requiring specialized skills and resources. State police can continue investigations, but for trials, the Court of Sessions acts as a competent forum.

Criticisms and Considerations

While the judgment provides much-needed clarity, some arguments have been raised:

• Equipping Court of Sessions: Concerns exist regarding whether all Courts of Sessions are adequately equipped to handle the complexities of UAPA trials. Training and infrastructure development might be necessary.
• Potential for Delays: Even with Court of Sessions handling cases, there's a possibility of delays due to factors like overburdened courts and the nature of UAPA trials. Streamlining judicial procedures remains essential.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment in the State of Maharashtra vs. Pradeep Suresh Warke & Ors case offers a clear interpretation of jurisdiction for UAPA cases when no special court is designated. It ensures that trials can proceed efficiently while acknowledging the NIA's expertise in specific cases. Moving forward, efforts should focus on equipping Courts of Sessions and streamlining judicial processes to ensure fair and speedy trials for UAPA offenses.