The Supreme Court has slammed the Karnataka government's plan to conduct a trial with over 700 witnesses in a UAPA case, labeling it 'absurd' and highlighting the extreme burden on special court judges.

Key Takeaways

  • The Supreme Court termed the prosecution's plan for a 700-witness UAPA trial as 'absurd as a fairy tale'.
  • The Bench expressed shock that a single trial judge is managing over 90 UAPA cases.
  • Chief Justice Surya Kant recommended that special courts should ideally handle only 12-15 UAPA trials.
  • The court directed the examination of 50 witnesses related to the accused within three months.

In a significant observation regarding the efficiency of the criminal justice system, the Supreme Court of India on Wednesday rejected the State of Karnataka's prosecution strategy in a high-profile UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act) case. The Bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, described the plan to examine over 700 witnesses within a 'reasonable time' as being as "absurd as a fairy tale".

The matter arose during a bail plea filed by Shahid Khan, who has been in custody since September 2022. The prosecution proposed examining 707 witnesses, including 64 protected witnesses, a scale that the court deemed practically impossible to execute without compromising judicial efficiency.

Read Also:Sabarimala Ghee Row: Kerala HC Orders Vigilance Probe into Alleged Procurement Conspiracy with Milma

Why This Matters

BozokMedia analysis shows that this ruling highlights a systemic crisis in India's special courts. The concentration of high-stakes terrorism cases on a handful of judges creates a bottleneck that delays justice for both the accused and the state, potentially leading to prolonged pre-trial detentions.

"You cannot give 70 to 90 cases to a judge like this; special courts must be adequately staffed to ensure humanly manageable schedules."

The Bench expressed deep concern over the workload of the trial judge, who is currently juggling more than 90 UAPA cases. The Chief Justice emphasized that if the number of cases rises, the state must invest in additional infrastructure and exclusive courts to prevent judicial burnout and ensure fair trials.

Historical Background

The UAPA is a stringent anti-terror law in India that grants authorities significant powers for arrest and detention. Due to the complexity of these cases and the high burden of proof, they often result in trials spanning several years, leading to frequent legal challenges regarding the right to a speedy trial.

Did You Know?: UAPA cases often involve 'protected witnesses' whose identities are kept secret to ensure their safety during testimony.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. Why did the Supreme Court criticize the Karnataka government?
The Court felt that promising to finish a trial with 700+ witnesses in a reasonable time was unrealistic and ignored the existing burden on judges.

2. What did the Court suggest regarding the number of UAPA cases per judge?
The Chief Justice suggested that a special court should ideally manage only 12 to 15 UAPA trials at a time.