'Timebound Trials In Heinous Cases Necessary, Otherwise Hardened Criminals Will Hijack System': Supreme Court

The National Investigation Agency informed the Supreme Court today that it is holding consultations with States on constitution of dedicated NIA Courts and a positive decision may likely be reached soon.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the case where it earlier flagged a need for dedicated courts to deal with trial of special cases under laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA).

During today's hearing, the Court underlined the importance of timebound completion of trials. "It's an opportunity for you to incentivize...if you can have timebound trials, particularly in these heinous offenses, it would send a very good message to society...to all hardened criminals also, they think they can hijack the entire system...for 10 years, they will not allow the trial to be concluded, courts will under compulsion grant bail", said Justice Kant to Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati.

The ASG, on behalf of NIA, told the Court that States will have to be take on board for the exercise, as the power of constitution of dedicated NIA Courts lies with them. In response, Justice Kant said, "you only commit that you will make necessary budgetary allocation" and conveyed that the role of High Courts and State governments can be dealt with later.

At this point, the ASG apprised about a proposal pending approval, under which Rs.1 crore are allocated as non-recurring expense, Rs. 60 lakhs p.a. on recurring expenditure, and states shall bear the expense of "land and building".

When Senior Advocate Trideep Pais (for petitioner) requested that the matter may be heard on merits, as the petitioner has been in custody for over 6 years and "there is only 1 phone call" against him, the bench expressed that it did not want to dismiss the case today and would hear it on a non-miscellaneous day.

Case Title: KAILASH RAMCHANDANI v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, SLP(Crl) No. 4276/2025