Supreme Court’s Urgent Call for Special NIA/UAPA Courts: A Push for Speedy Justice or Bail Looms
The Supreme Court of India gave the federal government and state governments a severe ultimatum in a landmark ruling on July 18, 2025: create special courts for cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, or risk releasing undertrials on bail because of trial delays. This ruling highlights a developing crisis in India’s legal system. It was made by Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi during a bail plea hearing for Kailash Ramchandani, an alleged Maoist sympathizer from Gadchiroli, Maharashtra. The Court’s push for exclusive courts may change the way anti-terror laws are implemented, as hundreds of cases involving terror are still pending. Here’s what’s at stake and why this decision is revolutionary.
The Supreme Court is frustrated because there aren’t enough special courts to try UAPA and other scheduled offenses, as required by Sections 11 and 22 of the NIA Act, 2008. Justice in high-stakes cases involving national security is delayed because these courts, which are supposed to guarantee speedy trials, are frequently weighed down by other civil and criminal cases. As a “coercion” of the system that burdens vulnerable litigants like senior citizens and marginalized communities, the bench criticized the Center’s practice of designating existing courts as special courts without establishing new judicial posts or infrastructure. Citing the right to life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21, the Court questioned how long suspects could be detained without a speedy trial.
The problem is brought to light by the case of Ramchandani, who was arrested for an IED explosion in 2019 that killed 15 police officers. Trials under the UAPA, which has strict bail requirements under Section 43D(5), frequently involve hundreds of witnesses and can go on for years. The Court observed that in Ramchandani’s case, only 40 out of 100 witnesses had been questioned, and the trial was still ongoing. Public concern is reflected in posts on X, where users such as @LiveLawIndia caution that if nothing is done, courts “will have no option but to release undertrials on bail.” The Court demanded new judges, staff, and courtrooms and gave the Center and Maharashtra four weeks to demonstrate tangible progress.
This is not the first warning. The Court noted on May 23, 2025, that a “judicial audit” is required to address backlogs in UAPA and MCOCA cases. The low conviction rate under UAPA—roughly 2.2% between 2016 and 2019—raises more concerns about the effectiveness of the law, as detractors claim it is being used to detain people without a trial. In order to balance national security and constitutional rights, the directive is consistent with earlier decisions such as Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021), which permits bail for extended incarceration in the event that trials are delayed.
Public safety and political narratives before elections may be impacted by the ruling, which challenges the government to act quickly or risk the release of accused in serious cases. Will specialized courts guarantee justice, or will there continue to be delays? Stay tuned for updates on this important judicial reform and share your thoughts.
