But beyond the relief to the specific accused, the bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh used the verdict to issue a slew of detailed directions for reform in undertrial prisoners for the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) cases generally.
The decision has wide implications for UAPA undertrials and comes at a time when bail cases relating to the 2020 Delhi riots case are pending determination before the apex court.
In a significant observation, the top court held that delay in cases involving the UAPA acquires a “qualitatively different, and more insidious, character” because the law places a reverse burden of proof on the accused.
This means that unlike other criminal cases, the onus is on the accused to prove that they are not guilty. This flips the presumption of innocence, the gold standard in ordinary criminal cases across countries.
“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,” the bench observed Thursday.
The Calcutta HC, it said, incorrectly applied Section 436-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (now Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita).
But after reviewing the record, the top court said disturbing the bail would not serve any purpose. The bench noted that sending the accused back to jail after they had spent over 12 years in custody would be unjustified, particularly given that the trial is nowhere near completion.
“The trial is of the year 2010, and as we stand at the end of 2025, still 28 witnesses are to be examined [out of 204],” the court noted.
The NCRB’s 2023 report, it said, shows that total cases pending for trial and total cases pending for investigation under UAPA were 3,949 and 4,794, respectively.
To operationalise the pathway for better disposal of UAPA cases, the court made several directions for this specific case and also ordered a broader system review.
Also Read: ‘No coercion plaint initially in FIR.’ Allahabad HC flags ‘strange facts’ in Sultanpur ‘conversion’
Directions for the system
More generally, the Supreme Court asked the Chief Justices of all High Courts to examine the number of cases under laws like the UAPA that impose a reverse burden of proof and directed that these lists be organised chronologically, so that the oldest cases are heard first.
For cases that have been pending for more than five years, the SC said trial courts must take stock of the situation, record reasons for the delay and hear the matter on a ‘day-to-day basis’, refraining from granting routine adjournments.
The Chief Justices have been requested to assess whether the number of designated special or sessions courts is sufficient to handle the caseload and to ensure that they are adequately staffed with judicial officers to prevent delays.
The State Legal Services Authorities must take steps to make every undertrial aware of their right to legal representation and expeditiously assign counsel if they choose legal aid.
To ensure compliance, HCs will seek periodic reports from trial courts and address administrative bottlenecks. In this specific case, the court said that the trial court must record why the matter has lingered for years, conduct proceedings day to day, and avoid routine adjournments “unless exceptional circumstances are shown.”
A designated administrative judge of the High Court must seek progress reports every four weeks.
The error
On 28 May 2010, the Mumbai-bound Jnaneswari Express derailed between Khemasuli and Sardiha in West Bengal, killing 148 people and injuring 170.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleged that the accused removed pandrol clips from the tracks to pressure the government to withdraw security forces in Jhargram that were deployed for anti-Maoist operations.
Charges were filed under the erstwhile Indian Penal Code (IPC) including Sections 302 (murder) and 120B (criminal conspiracy); Sections 150 and 151 of the Railways Act (maliciously wrecking a train), and Sections 16 and 18 of the UAPA (terrorist act and conspiracy)—all carrying severe penalties, including death.
The trial began years ago but progressed slowly. By the time the HC granted bail in 2022 and 2023, the accused had already spent about 12 years in custody.
At the heart of the SC’s finding was the HC’s reliance on Section 436A of the CrPC, which provides for bail to undertrials in limited cases.
The section allows the release of undertrials who have served half of the maximum sentence and acts as a safeguard against indefinite detention in offences not punishable by death.
In this regard, the bench accepted the State’s contention that it does not apply here because the accused face charges that carry the death penalty, including murder and terrorist acts under the UAPA.
The HC, it said, applied the provision “mechanically”. This means that because the accused were subject to the possibility of the death penalty, the HC could not have technically granted bail under this provision.
The Supreme Court further used the opportunity to address the deeper systemic issue of “doctrinal inversion” in laws such as the UAPA.
Section 43-E of the Act, it said, places a “reverse burden of proof” on the accused once the prosecution shows foundational facts. This means that once the State is able to prove the existence of certain basic and “foundational” facts relating to the offence, the burden or responsibility to prove innocence shifts to the accused.
When this legal burden meets procedural delay, the bench noted, the “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.”
It recalled several other decisions, including the Sanjay Chandra case, to note that even in offences under the erstwhile TADA (Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act), UAPA and economic offences, a long period of incarceration can justify bail when a timely trial has not been carried out.
Akshat Jain is a final-year student at the National Law University, Delhi and is a contributor with ThePrint
(Edited by Tony Rai)
Also Read: How Supreme Court has liberalised bail jurisprudence under anti-terror law UAPA in last three years