The Supreme Court, while directing all High Courts to ascertain the status of pending trials under various statutes, including the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and to examine the availability of Special Courts to hear such matters, observed that although the reversal of burden requires the accused to prove their innocence, they must be given adequate facilities to do so, and that prolonged incarceration could impede this fundamental requirement.
In an order delivered on Thursday, the apex court instructed High Court Chief Justices to assess the number of designated courts handling these specialised offences and to review the appointments of Special Public Prosecutors, thereby seeking to streamline the institutional mechanisms required for expeditious adjudication.
The Bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, issued these directions while hearing appeals filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation against the Calcutta High Court’s decision to grant bail in the 2010 Jnaneshwari Express derailment case, and it used the occasion to address systemic delays that disproportionately impact undertrials facing reverse-burden provisions.
The court noted that trials pending for more than five years require particular attention and instructed that such cases should proceed on a day-to-day basis.
The court emphasised that when statutes impose a presumption of guilt, the State has an obligation to ensure that the accused are equipped with meaningful opportunities to challenge such presumptions, and it observed that individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds face particular hardships when they are incarcerated and have limited access to legal or evidentiary resources.
It highlighted that delays within the criminal justice system assume a more damaging character in cases under special laws such as the UAPA, as the requirement to rebut presumptions even before the trial fully unfolds creates an added procedural burden that can effectively undermine the right to a fair defence.
The Bench further underscored that clogged court dockets, inadequate institutional resources, and inconsistent prosecutorial diligence contribute to a situation in which the liberty of an accused person becomes contingent upon systemic inefficiencies, and it stressed that judicial institutions must act proactively to ensure that procedural obligations do not evolve into insurmountable obstacles.
The court maintained that the justice system must safeguard fairness even in regimes where extraordinary statutory burdens are imposed, and it asserted that the protection of rights must extend to those under suspicion, thereby reaffirming the principle that constitutional democracy demands both accountability and humane treatment within criminal processes.