Special court system has become mockery, judges are overburdened: Supreme Court

Judges of special courts assigned to deal with cases falling under special laws should deal only with those cases and not ordinary civil and criminal matters, the Supreme Court said on Monday [In Re: Creation of Special Exclusive Courts].

The Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi took note of concerns that such judges are currently burdened with with not just cases falling under special laws but also ordinary criminal and civil matters.

The special court system has become a mockery due to the same, the Supreme Court lamented.

"There are questions of liberty, right to life, etc. State writes to High Court Chief Justice that court is needed for SC/ST Act cases. Then another letter (is sent) asking for NIA Court. Same special court becomes the NIA court. Then (it also becomes the court dealing with) family cases. So the special court becomes a mockery," CJI Kant observed.

The Bench then spoke of reforms needed to improve the efficiency of such special courts.

"Day-to-day trial has to take place in these courts. Special court has to be in adjoining, next building or closest to the place where Bar members are. Ideally, it should be in the same complex. It has to be one court. Then additional manpower will be needed. So we need trained and experienced judicial officers and there will be a temporary increase in higher judicial services cadre strength also," the CJI said.

The Court was hearing a suo motu case registered in February this year to oversee the creation of special courts to tackle the pendency of criminal trials under special laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

During the last hearing of the matter, the Court asked various States to give an estimate of the staffing requirements needed to ensure that special National Investigation Agency (NIA) courts finish UAPA trials within one year

In today's hearing, Advocates General of the States concerned were present to address the Court.

Counsel representing the Jharkhand government told the Court that there were 790 UAPA cases pending in the State. The judges dealing with such cases are principal district judges, he added.

"This (lack of judges tasked to exclusively hear UAPA cases) is what is creating the problem. Hardly they (UAPA accused) will be on bail," the CJI observed.

Justice Bagchi added that the Court is not concerned with assigning blame to any government, but is concerned with the number of undertrial prisoners who remain in jail because of delays in trials by special courts.

"Just see how many are undertrials at the moment. That is our concern. Not the State or Centre...Do you know the burden of the principal district judge. Is the judge dealing with only UAPA?" remarked Justice Bagchi.

"No, milord," replied Jharkhand's counsel.

"That is the problem," Justice Bagchi replied.

"We wanted to sensitise you all, so that you can tell us how many cases are pending and how many will be dealt with," CJI Kant weighed in.

The Court proceeded to seek information from States on the number of pending special court cases so that it may examine how many more courts may be required to deal with them in a time-bound manner.

The Bench said that it will focus on ensuring that special courts only deal with cases falling under special laws, and not other criminal or civil cases.

"Jharkhand is uniquely situated so more UAPA cases. Maharashtra has more MCOCA cases. Gujarat has more Gangster Act cases. The mechanism we are evolving so that courts deal with exclusively with such cases. 'Exclusive' word we are using....for every 10 to 15 cases we need one court. So if there are 200 to 300 witnesses...then you imagine," the CJI said.

The Court proceeded to order the Advocates General of all States to identify how many separate special courts are required to deal with UAPA and cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act).

The States shall also give information on requisite infrastructure needed, the Court said.

During the hearing, the Court said that it has to be mindful about the limits of judges manning these special courts as well.

"The presiding officer (judge in special courts) is also a human being. So within one year, you see how many trials can be completed. We have to also change criteria of ACR evaluation of such officers. You also need to give a special public prosecutor dealing with such a court," said the CJI.

The Court also noted that the Central government has already expressed its willingness to give additional funds to set up more special courts.

"Centre says they will give funds for recurring expenditure as well," CJI Kant observed.

In an earlier order, the Court had noted that the Central government has issued an official memo dated January 7. This memo laid out the manner in which States may be reimbursed for expenses incurred in earmarking one existing court as a special NIA court to deal exclusively with UAPA cases.

"The Union has agreed to reimburse non-recurring ₹1 crore expenditure for all State governments. It shall also be giving recurring ₹1 crore expenditure to all States annually. Provided the States provide land and building for the courts," its order today recorded.

The case will be heard further in May.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the Central government.

[Live Coverage]