The Supreme Court expressed concern over delays in establishing exclusive NIA courts, observing that several states have failed to take effective steps despite earlier directions. The court said inadequate infrastructure was delaying trials in serious terror-related cases and affecting justice delivery
Published Date – 20 July 2026, 08:46 PM
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday lamented that a few states have not taken effective steps to set up exclusive special NIA courts to try serious offences. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was irked over the slow pace of establishing exclusive courts for National Investigation Agency (NIA) cases, saying that the “ground reality” of judicial infrastructure remains dismal despite official claims of progress.
“We find that in some of the states, no effective steps have been taken for the establishment of exclusive NIA courts. In Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, the setting up of only one court is grossly inadequate to tackle the pendency of such cases,” the CJI said.
The suo motu case, titled ‘In Re: creation of special exclusive courts’, was initiated after the top court noticed that NIA trials, often involving charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), were languishing for years, affecting the rights of both the accused and the victims.
At the outset, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre, told the bench that significant progress has been made, with 14 exclusive designated NIA courts now established.
She said that Jharkhand has 27 NIA cases and seven designated courts. Jammu & Kashmir, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Manipur, Assam and Mizoram have one designated court each, while Gujarat has three designated courts, she added.
The CJI, however, said that merely designating courts was not sufficient. “The most dangerous thing is ‘designated’,” he said. The law officer further said that approvals for additional courts had been received on July 16 and that only the formal government notification remained to be issued.
The bench also examined the position in Punjab and Haryana. Referring to the status report, the CJI noted that Punjab and Haryana together have 32 NIA cases but only one designated court. Appearing for Haryana, the counsel submitted that while the state had established exclusive courts for NDPS matters, one court for NIA cases had been notified on June 23.
The law officer assured the bench that appropriate steps would be taken. On May 8, the top court had directed that at least one special court be established to deal with 10 to 15 pending trials in cases probed by the NIA.
Passing a slew of directions to expedite trials in cases where the Centre, through the NIA, is the prosecutor, the apex court said the special courts should be set up within a month. The bench had directed the Centre to approach the chief justice of the jurisdictional high courts and have consultations for establishing exclusive courts under Section 11 of the NIA Act, 2008.
Section 11 of the Act deals with the power of the central government to constitute special courts. The bench directed that no other cases shall be entrusted to the special courts and the trial would be conducted on a day-to-day basis.
It said the special court judges would be at liberty to list the matters in the manner they want while ensuring that at least one trial is concluded within a month.
“It is made clear that there shall be at least one special court for 10 to 15 pending trials,” the bench directed. It said two special courts would be set up if the number of pending trials were above 15.
The bench asked the states to comply with its earlier order in which it had said that it would be necessary for them to provide the requisite courtrooms and other immovable infrastructure for the establishment of the exclusive special courts.
The bench also dealt with the issue of trials in cases under Section 22 of the Act where the state is the prosecutor. Section 22 deals with the power of the state government to constitute special courts.
The top court asked the advocate generals of the states, in consultation with the registrar general of the high courts, to furnish details of pending trials in their respective jurisdictions. It had posted the matter for hearing on July 20.
