Pendency Of NIA Cases In Designated Special Courts: Delhi High Court Seeks MHA’s Response

The Delhi High Court has sought response of Ministry of Home Affairs on a plea highlighting the pendency of cases registered under National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act in two designated special courts of the national capital.

At present, the NIA cases in Patiala House Courts are being heard by two special courts i.e. Principal District and Sessions Judge and an Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ 03).

Justice Jasmeet Singh was hearing a case moved by an accused Manzer Imam, who has been in custody for last nine years in a Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act case, without framing of charges till date.

Manzer Imam, an alleged Indian Mujahideen operative, was arrested in August 2013 in a case registered by NIA alleging that he, along with others, conspired to commit terrorist acts and made preparations for targeting prominent places in the country.

The court directed that the response be filed within six weeks and listed the matter for hearing on April 28.

The counsel appearing for Imam referred to a status report filed by High Court’s Registrar stating that as on July 31, 2022, a total of 44 NIA cases were pending before the two designated special courts.

He submitted that while the situation has improved after creation of specially designated courts, the workload on ASJ 03 has been increased as far as NIA cases are concerned.

Attention of the court was taken to a notification issued by MHA on September 26, 2020, wherein it had notified two courts as special NIA courts.

Another reason highlighted for pendency was that the court of Principal District and Sessions Judge cannot exclusively be dealing with NIA cases.

“The Principal District and Sessions Judge cannot exclusively be NIA judge. The designation is the problem to begin with…..MHA can designate another court,” the counsel said.

However, Justice Singh responded: “I cannot tell them to legislate. That is the notification of MHA. I can see the validity but I cannot tell them to pass another notification.”

Imam’s counsel further said that as an accused under UAPA, he has been incarcerated in jail for the last nine years and that there are more than 360 witnesses in his case. He said that there might be a further delay in adjudication of his case pending before special judge.

On the other hand, the counsel appearing for NIA submitted that the special judge has been hearing Imam’s case almost on a regular basis, except for one or two days and that the probe agency will be concluding its arguments on charge by next week.

After hearing the parties, the court ordered: “Let the reply be filed dealing with the contentions of the petitioner within six weeks. List on April 28.”

A division bench last month sought response of NIA on Imam’s bail. He was denied bail by a special court on November 28.

The FIR against Imam was registered under various provisions of UAPA and IPC. He was arrested in the year 2013.

His plea had prayed that Special NIA Courts must deal exclusively with NIA investigated scheduled offences so that trials must be expeditiously held by such courts. It also seeks directions to the Special Court for conducting the trial in Imam's case on a day-to-day basis.

Case Title: MANZER IMAM v. UOI, THROUGH JT. SECRETARY, INTERNAL SECURITY DIVISION, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ORS