Supreme Court Calls Karnataka’s UAPA Trial Plan “Absurd”, Questions Prolonged Custody
The court criticised the state’s proposed witness schedule and said an accused cannot remain in jail for years while the trial moves slowly.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday strongly criticised Karnataka’s prosecution strategy in a UAPA case involving Shahid Khan, who has been in custody since September 22, 2022.
The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, questioned the state’s plan to conduct the trial while Khan remains incarcerated.
The court was hearing Khan’s bail plea in a case linked to an alleged conspiracy involving members of the Popular Front of India. The prosecution has accused the group of attempting to radicalise young people and involve them in unlawful and violent activities.
The chargesheet includes Sections 17 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, along with Sections 153A, 121A, 120B and 121 of the Indian Penal Code.
The bench raised concerns over the prosecution’s proposed witness list. The case has 707 witnesses, but the Karnataka government proposed examining only 50 witnesses in connection with Khan. Of these, just three or four are among 64 protected witnesses.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi sharply questioned the proposal and described the prosecution’s approach as “as absurd as a fairytale”. He asked why the state required a year to examine witnesses without clearly stating the minimum number of witnesses it intended to call.
The court also rejected the state’s suggestion that repeated interim bail and discharge applications filed by the accused were responsible for delaying the trial.
Justice Bagchi said the prosecution could not blame bail proceedings for the delay when it had not ensured that its witnesses were brought before the court.
The bench further criticised prosecuting agencies for appearing to devote considerable effort to opposing bail applications rather than ensuring that trials are completed promptly.
Chief Justice Surya Kant also referred to an earlier trial court order rejecting interim bail, which ran for around 10 to 12 pages. He observed that such applications could generally be dealt with through shorter orders, leaving more judicial time for the main trial.
Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, representing Khan, told the court that his client had spent more than four years in custody. He said Khan had filed only one interim bail application, after the death of his father in law.
Sondhi also pointed out that nine other accused facing similar allegations had already been granted bail in cases registered under the IPC.
The Supreme Court declined to accept Karnataka’s proposed schedule for the prosecution, citing Khan’s lengthy period in custody.
The bench also noted that the trial was pending before a judge who was responsible for 97 other trials, raising further concerns about how quickly the case could progress.
The court directed the Union government, the Karnataka government and the Karnataka High Court to comply with earlier directions concerning the creation of an adequate number of exclusive National Investigation Agency courts.
It said the judge handling Khan’s case should ideally have a much lighter workload, with around 10 to 12 trials assigned to the judge, including Khan’s case, to help ensure a faster trial.