SC directs Karnataka to set up additional special court for UAPA cases

/Mangalore Today News Network

New Delhi, Aug 12, 2026: Observing that the state “cannot have the luxury of prolonging this trial for years,” the Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Karnataka government to provide infrastructure for an additional special court to exclusively hear cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) on a day-to-day basis.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana issued the directions while hearing a petition filed by Shahid Khan, an accused in a Popular Front of India (PFI) conspiracy case. The prosecution proposes to examine 707 witnesses, including several protected witnesses.

The court directed the Karnataka government to immediately provide the required infrastructure, including one additional post in the Karnataka Higher Judicial Service, along with staff and other facilities as prescribed by the High Court. The necessary sanctions are to be granted within two weeks.

Once the infrastructure, staff and post are sanctioned, the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court will designate a judicial officer to preside over the additional special court. The court will exclusively handle UAPA cases on a day-to-day basis.

The Supreme Court also directed that the present case be transferred to the special court. The presiding officer was asked to first examine the three protected witnesses, followed by other material witnesses, so that key prosecution evidence is recorded within a maximum period of three months.

After the examination of the material witnesses, Khan will be at liberty to seek bail afresh. The court said such an application should be considered on its own merits and without being influenced by observations made in the earlier order.

The bench took note of the workload of the existing special court. The Karnataka government informed the court that around 97 trials were pending and that repeated interim bail applications by different accused were also consuming considerable judicial time.

The bench recalled its earlier direction that multiple special courts be established in Karnataka for UAPA cases, with each court handling no more than 12 to 15 cases. It directed the state to ensure compliance if this arrangement had not already been implemented.

“If that has not been done, compliance with our earlier order shall also be ensured,” the bench said, adding that the presiding officer should handle only 12 to 15 cases, including the present one.

Referring to the prolonged proceedings, the bench observed that the state could not afford to allow the trial to continue for years. Justice Bagchi noted that with 97 trials pending, even cases involving fewer witnesses could take years to conclude.

He also criticised the understanding that witness examination should be halted whenever an accused files an interim bail application. He emphasised that the examination of witnesses is part of the trial and should ordinarily continue.

The bench noted that although 707 prosecution witnesses were listed in the present case, only around 50 were considered material, while three protected witnesses were required to be examined in the immediate phase.

“Unless the trial is taken up on a day-to-day basis, it will be practically impossible to conclude it within a reasonable time,” the Chief Justice observed.

The CJI also criticised the length of the trial court’s order rejecting an interim bail application, noting that the court had taken around 12 pages to reject the application.

Senior advocate Aditya Sondhi, appearing for Khan, submitted that his client had been in custody for nearly four years. He argued that nine other accused facing IPC offences arising from substantially similar allegations had already been granted bail.

Sondhi said Khan had filed only one interim bail application, following the death of his father-in-law, and that it too had been rejected. He urged the Supreme Court to consider Khan’s right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.