‘Day-to-day hearing vital in national security cases’
*Special Court asked to prioritize trial, avoid adjournments
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, May 23: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that prolonged incarceration without timely conclusion of trial violates the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, even in cases involving stringent anti-terror legislation such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Further, the High Court observed that while offences under the UAPA concern national security and public order, constitutional protections cannot be eclipsed merely because allegations are grave in nature.
These observations were made by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal in a petition filed by one Arif Billa Sheikh, a resident of Tujjar, Baramulla, who sought directions for speedy conclusion of trial arising out of FIR No 03/2020 registered at Police Station Bomai under Sections 16, 18, 20 and 23 of the UAPA, Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act, and Sections 307 and 427 IPC.
According to the case record, the FIR was registered on March 30, 2020. Investigation concluded with filing of the charge-sheet on October 10, 2020, while charges were framed on March 29, 2021. Despite passage of more than five years thereafter, the trial had not reached final adjudication.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that although nearly 20 witnesses had been cited and substantial prosecution evidence had already been recorded, the proceedings were not being conducted on a day-to-day basis.
One of the most important legal aspects highlighted in the judgment was Section 19 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, which mandates that trials before Special Courts must proceed on a day-to-day basis and receive precedence over other matters.
The High Court underscored that Parliament deliberately incorporated this provision to ensure that prosecutions involving serious offences affecting sovereignty and national security are concluded expeditiously rather than remaining pending indefinitely.
“The mandate of day-to-day trial is intended to strike a balance between societal interest and individual liberty”, the High Court said, adding “unnecessary adjournments defeat the very object of speedy trial and weaken public confidence in the criminal justice system”.
While acknowledging the seriousness of allegations under the UAPA, the High Court made it clear that anti-terror laws do not extinguish constitutional guarantees. “The criminal justice system does not proceed on presumption of guilt. Every accused continues to enjoy presumption of innocence till guilt is established in accordance with law through a fair trial”, it added.
In a key observation, the High Court warned that if trials under stringent enactments remain pending for years, the process itself may become punitive. The Court added that prolonged detention not only deprives liberty but also subjects an accused to mental agony, uncertainty and prejudice caused by delayed adjudication.
The High Court relied upon a series of landmark rulings of the Supreme Court dealing with speedy trial and prolonged incarceration where the Apex Court held that constitutional courts may intervene even in UAPA matters when prolonged incarceration and delayed trial violate Article 21. The judgment also referred to the recent ruling in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi Vs National Investigation Agency decided on May 18, 2026.
The High Court held that constitutional courts are duty bound to intervene where undertrial prisoners remain incarcerated for prolonged periods without timely conclusion of proceedings. The Court observed that prolonged custody of the petitioner coupled with delay in progress of trial undoubtedly raises serious constitutional concerns which cannot be ignored.
It further stated that although courts dealing with UAPA offences must exercise utmost caution because of concerns relating to security of the State, such seriousness cannot justify indefinite delay in conclusion of trial.
Apart from the individual rights of the accused, the High Court also highlighted the broader institutional impact of delayed criminal trials. The judgment observed that passage of time weakens evidentiary value, affects recollection of witnesses and undermines public confidence in the judicial process. The High Court stressed that fairness in criminal justice is not confined merely to granting hearing opportunities but also requires proceedings to conclude within a reasonable time.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of allegations against the accused, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with directions to the Trial Court/Special Court concerned to accord priority to the trial arising out of FIR No. 03/2020, ensure meaningful progress on each hearing date, avoid unnecessary adjournments and make all possible endeavours to conclude the proceedings expeditiously.2
Follow our WhatsApp channel
