'288 Gangster Case Trials Pending In NCT': Supreme Court Asks Union & Delhi Govt To Introduce Fast-Track Courts

Highlighting the need for expeditious trials in gangster-related cases, the Supreme Court today called on the Union of India and Delhi government to consider establishment of fast-track courts which can deal with such cases on a day-to-day basis. 

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi made the suggestion to Additional Solicitor General SD Sanjay, after it was informed that there are 288 trials pending in the national capital courts pertaining to gangster-related cases, out of which charges have been framed in 108 cases and there is a gap of 3-4 years between framing of charges and commencement of prosecution evidence.

The Court reflected that if the proposed decision is taken by the governments, all pending trials can be brought to an end.

"Considering pendency of 288 trials against gangsters, etc., there will have to be appropriate strength of courts to ensure that these cases can be aptly distributed and their trials can proceed on day-to-day basis. If such decision is taken by apt authorities, it seems to us that all pending trials can be brought to an end, for which some more directions like compulsory appearance of defense counsels, dispensation of adjournments, and a timeline for purpose of conclusion of investigation, framing of charges, may also be issued at appropriate stage."

Based on an additional affidavit placed on record by the Delhi government, Justice Kant commented during the hearing,

"25% trial cases have reached the stage of prosecution evidence. That means 75% cases are still in queue to reach the stage of prosecution evidence. When that evidence will be over? Absolutely indefinite. Even trial court can't answer."

"Union of India and NCT of Delhi must sit on table, identity for 288 cases, if we want to finish trial ideally within 1 year, right from filing of chargesheet to conclusion of trial, for that purpose how many designate courts we need? And that court should have no case other than under the Gangsters Act", the judge conveyed to the ASG.

Speaking of the 'chilling effect' that a time-bound adjudication can have on such criminals, Justice Kant said,

"If we can conceptualize the earlier concept of fast-track courts, only for the purpose of eliminating these matters from pendency…if you have dedicated adjudicatory mechanism for these cases, it will have very good chilling effect, people will be very happy, Courts won't be compelled to release them on bail and inviting repeated offenses, trial will be expedited, message will go."

The Court noted that establishment of dedicated court complexes for speedy trial of hardened criminals/professional gangsters can help avoid a situation where they are to be released on bail. As a corollary, the additional infrastructure can enhance safety and security, including of witnesses, which is "need of the hour", it said, calling for a holistic view by stakeholders - especially the Union, the NCT of Delhi and the Delhi High Court, with respect to cases pending in NCT Delhi.

"This can only happen if Union and Govt of Delhi resolve to introduce a mechanism like fast-track courts for trial of these cases. For this, additional posts of judicial officers will have to be created or a separate ad-hoc cadre for such courts can be evolved. The infrastructural facilities and other requisite staff that may be required also needs to be provided", the Court stated.

At the same time, it emphasized on the importance of witness-protection in such cases and probed the ASG about steps taken in that regard.

"You keep the undertrial in jail, but you can't keep the witness in jail. He is in society. And what is the protective cover you are giving them? Because they are your eyes and ears. If your eyes and ears don't function, ultimately we find that confidence of people in the justice delivery system, in the criminal justice system, is affected. There's a daylight murder on the streets of Delhi and finally because lack of evidence, man is going scot-free. See the rule of law is absolutely impaired in the eyes of the common man" remarked Justice Bagchi.

The bench also lamented the rising threat to rule of law due to criminal incidents in the national capital region. “In the NCR, if you just go out the geographical boundary of Delhi, what's happening? Particularly in this belt of Haryana – Sonipat, Jhajjar, Gurugram, Faridabad...”, questioned Justice Kant.

At one point, Justice Bagchi also opined that the "game plan" in such cases is to protract the trial to win over witnesses, so that ultimately acquittal is handed over. Justice Kant, on his part, added that gangsters should be dealt with "ruthlessly" (but of course in accordance with law).

"Gangsters must be dealt with ruthlessly, ofcourse in accordance with law. We should not have misplaced sympathy for them, that he's in custody, bail, this or that. 70-80 years old women are attacked for the sake of snatching chain or because she's living alone…society needs to get rid of them", opined Justice Kant.

Pointing to the overwhelming burden on prosecutors, Justice Bagchi added, "In my experience, one prosecutor handles 50 prosecutions. If it humanly possible for that prosecutor to have a day-to-day trial? That is the unfortunate thing about our criminal justice system. It starts with the arrest and ends with the bail. There is no conviction, there is no trial."

Before parting with the matter, the bench also appreciated State of Andhra Pradesh's recent notification establishing special courts.

Briefly put, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court seeking bail in an FIR registered under Sections 307/386 of IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. There were 55 cases lodged against him, mostly involving heinous crimes. In two of them, he was also convicted. As such, in February, the top Court denied him bail, but asked the prosecution to show cause as to why a mechanism for speedy trial was not in place. Since then, the matter got listed from time to time for the state to come up with requisite proposal.

Case Title: MAHESH KHATRI @ BHOLI Versus STATE NCT OF DELHI, SLP(Crl) No. 1422/2025