NIA Act | Court of Sessions Has Jurisdiction To Try UAPA Cases When State Hasn't Designated Any Special Court : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Thursday (April 18) held that in the absence of the designation of a special court by the state government, the Court of Sessions would have the jurisdiction to try offences punishable under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (“UAPA”),“A bare perusal of sub-section (3) of Section 22 of NIA Act would make it clear that until a Special Court is constituted...
The Supreme Court on Thursday (April 18) held that in the absence of the designation of a special court by the state government, the Court of Sessions would have the jurisdiction to try offences punishable under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (“UAPA”),
“A bare perusal of sub-section (3) of Section 22 of NIA Act would make it clear that until a Special Court is constituted by the State Government under sub-Section (1) of Section 22, in case of registration of any offence punishable under UAPA, the Court of Sessions of the division, in which the offence has been committed, would have the jurisdiction as conferred by the Act on a Special Court and a fortiori, it would have all the powers to follow the procedure provided under Chapter IV of the NIA Act.”, the bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta said.
The judgment authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta upheld the UAPA proceedings initiated by the Sessions Courts when there was no designation of the special court by the state government.
The initiation of the proceedings by the session judge based on the preliminary investigation report was challenged before the High Court. The High Court quashed the UAPA proceedings holding that only a Special Court constituted by the Central Government or the State Government as per the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter being referred to as 'NIA Act') had the exclusive jurisdiction to try the offences under UAPA.
The High Court's decision was challenged before the Supreme Court by the state government.
The court underscored the mandate of law provided under Section 22 of the NIA Act by stating that the Court of Sessions of the division, in which the offence has been committed, would have the jurisdiction as conferred by the NIA Act on a Special Court to try UAPA cases where no special court was designated by the state government.
Observing that as the present involves an investigation by the State police, therefore the case falls under Section 22 of the NIA.
“It is not in dispute that the State of West Bengal has so far not exercised the power conferred upon it by Section 22 of the NIA Act for constituting a Special Court for trial of offences set out in the Schedule to the NIA Act and hence, the Sessions Court within whose jurisdiction, the offence took place which would be the Chief Judge cum City Sessions Court in the case at hand, had the power and jurisdiction to deal with the case by virtue of the sub-section (3) of Section 22 of the NIA Act.”, the court observed.
Jurisdictional Magistrate Couldn't Remand Accused in UAPA Cases Beyond 90 Days
The court held that the jurisdictional magistrate would be authorized to remand the accused in UAPA cases for the period of 90 days, and the remand beyond the period of 90 days would be authorized by an express order of the Sessions Court or the Special Court by virtue of Section 43D(2) of UAPA.
“In view of the definition of the 'Court' provided under Section 2(1)(d) of UAPA, the jurisdictional Magistrate would also be clothed with the jurisdiction to deal with the remand of the accused albeit for a period of 90 days only because an express order of the Sessions Court or the Special Court, as the case may be, authorising remand beyond such period would be required by virtue of Section 43D(2) of UAPA(reproduced supra).”, the court said.
As a consequence of the above discussion, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court was reversed and set aside.
Counsels For Petitioner(s) Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv. Ms. Kshitij Singh, Adv. Mr. Sohhom Sau, Adv.
Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. R. Mahadevan, Adv. Mr. V. Balaji, Adv. Mr. C. Kannan, Adv. Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Ms. Adviteeya, Adv. Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR
Case Title: THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. JAYEETA DAS
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 312