Supreme Court calls Karnataka’s UAPA trial schedule for Muslim man ‘absurd as a fairytale’

The Supreme Court questioned the prosecution schedule in a UAPA case involving a Muslim man, calling the schedule ‘as absurd as a fairytale’, while reminding the Karnataka government that it cannot afford the luxury of prolonging a trial for years while an accused remains in custody.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana made the observations while hearing the bail plea of Shahid Khan, who has been in custody since 22 September 2022, according to Live Law.

A chargesheet was filed against Shahid, who is accused of being among the PFI members who allegedly conspired to radicalise young people and engage in unlawful and violent activities, invoking Sections 17 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), besides Sections 153A, 121A, 120B and 121 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Bench took particular exception to the prosecution’s proposed plan for examining witnesses, under which the Karnataka government proposed examining only 50 of the 707 witnesses listed in the case in relation to Khan, including just three or four of the 64 protected witnesses.

Justice Bagchi questioned why the prosecution required a year to examine witnesses without clearly specifying the minimum number it intended to call, describing the proposed approach as “as absurd as a fairytale”.

Rejecting the state’s contention that repeated interim bail and discharge applications by the accused had contributed to the delay, Justice Bagchi observed that the prosecution could not attribute the delay to bail applications when it had itself failed to produce witnesses before the court.

The judges further criticised prosecuting agencies for appearing to devote greater attention to opposing bail pleas than to securing convictions through a prompt trial. CJI Surya Kant noted that one trial court order rejecting interim bail ran to 10–12 pages, suggesting that such applications could ordinarily be disposed of more briefly, leaving judicial time for the trial itself.

Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, representing Khan, submitted that his client had spent more than four years in custody and had filed only one interim bail application, following the death of his father-in-law, pointing out that nine other accused facing similar allegations were already on bail in connection with the IPC offences.

The Supreme Court declined to accept the state’s proposed schedule, citing Khan’s prolonged incarceration. It was noted that the trial was pending before a judge already handling 97 other trials.

The Bench directed the Union and Karnataka governments, along with the Karnataka High Court, to ensure compliance with earlier directions to establish an adequate number of exclusive NIA courts. Ideally, it said, the judge handling Khan’s case should be assigned only 10–12 trials, including his own.