Supreme Court Advocates for Increased Judge Cadre to Staff Special Courts, Citing Strain on Judiciary

New Delhi – In a significant judicial intervention aimed at unclogging the trial process for heinous offenses, the Supreme Court of India has once again emphatically urged the Union Government to increase the cadre strength of judicial officers to establish dedicated courts for cases under special statutes like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act. The Court strongly cautioned against the practice of merely earmarking existing judges for these special trials, highlighting that such a measure would only redistribute, not alleviate, the immense burden on an already overstretched judiciary.

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, while hearing two separate cases concerning trial delays, including one involving the NIA, articulated a clear policy prescription to address the systemic issue of protracted pre-trial detention. The bench conveyed its concerns to Additional Solicitor Generals (ASGs) Aishwarya Bhati and SD Sanjay, proposing a structural solution rather than a stop-gap administrative arrangement.

The Core Proposal: Augmentation Over Reallocation

Justice Surya Kant, leading the bench's observations, pointedly addressed the prevailing approach where the Union might request High Court Chief Justices to designate sitting judges for special courts. He argued that this strategy is counterproductive. "If Chief Justices spare even 1 or 2 judges for exclusively dealing with heinous cases under UAPA, MCOCA, etc., that would be at the cost of other courts/cases," Justice Kant observed.

The bench's proposed solution was direct and unambiguous: expand the judicial workforce.

"If there are 50 (judges), please make it 60, that is what we are wanting...let it be on a temporary cadre," stated Justice Kant, advocating for a tangible increase in the number of judicial posts.

This suggestion marks a crucial shift in the discourse, moving from reallocating limited resources to expanding the resource pool itself. The Court posited that even a temporary increase in cadre strength would provide the necessary manpower to ensure expeditious trials without compromising the disposal rate of other civil and criminal matters that form the backbone of the district judiciary's workload.

In response to the Court's firm stance, the ASGs assured the bench that a high-level joint meeting would be convened to consider a formal proposal for establishing exclusive courts. The Court, in its order, meticulously detailed the composition of this proposed meeting, directing the participation of "the concerned Secretaries of the Government of India, Head of the Special Forces, including Delhi Police Commissioner." The order also mandated the presence of the Chief Secretaries and Home Secretaries of state governments, with an invitation extended to both ASGs. The outcome of this meeting is to be submitted to the Court as a status report.

Legal Nuances and Creative Solutions

The bench also delved into the legal mechanisms available to the government. Justice Joymalya Bagchi highlighted a key distinction concerning NIA cases, pointing out that unlike other statutes, the Central Government possesses independent power to establish special courts under the NIA Act. This observation puts the onus more squarely on the Union to act proactively in creating the necessary judicial infrastructure for cases prosecuted by the central agency.

Addressing the long-term viability of such dedicated courts, Justice Kant noted that the need is unlikely to diminish, given the continuous filing of cases under these special laws. However, he provided a pragmatic contingency: should the caseload decrease, these additional judges could be seamlessly integrated into the regular judicial system and assigned other dockets.

Furthermore, the bench offered a creative solution to potential recruitment challenges: hiring retired judicial officers. Justice Kant suggested that the government could tap into the vast experience of retired judges with "outstanding service records and good disposal of trials."

"Age of 60 is hardly anything to sit at home..." remarked the judge, noting the successful utilization of such officers in forums like Permanent Lok Adalats. This approach, he suggested, would be a less challenging recruitment process while bringing seasoned expertise to bear on complex and sensitive trials.

A Consistent Judicial Campaign for Speedy Trials

This intervention is not an isolated event but the latest in a series of pointed reminders from the Supreme Court on this issue. The same bench, led by Justice Kant, has been consistently highlighting the constitutional crisis brewing from indefinite pre-trial detention in UAPA and NIA cases.

In a hearing earlier this month, the NIA had informed the court of ongoing consultations with states, as the power to constitute dedicated courts largely lies with them. Responding to ASG Bhati's submission on the need to get states on board, Justice Kant had pragmatically cut through the procedural complexities, telling the Union, "you only commit that you will make necessary budgetary allocation." This statement underscored the Court's view that financial commitment from the Centre is the primary catalyst, with coordination with High Courts and states being a subsequent step.

The Court's impatience with the status quo was starkly evident in a July 2025 hearing, where it issued a stern warning. The bench had cautioned the Union of India that if special courts with adequate infrastructure were not established, it would be left with "no option but to release undertrials on bail." The Court's powerful query from that hearing continues to resonate: "For how long suspects can be kept in indefinite custody?"

In the present case of MAHESH KHATRI @ BHOLI Versus STATE NCT OF DELHI , the bench reiterated that establishing dedicated courts for these trials would "send a very strong message regarding society's commitment to rule of law."

The Supreme Court's persistent advocacy for increasing judicial strength presents a formidable challenge to the executive and legislature. It frames the issue of trial delays not merely as a matter of judicial administration but as a fundamental question of resource allocation, legislative will, and the state's commitment to upholding the right to a speedy trial, even for those accused of the most serious crimes. The outcome of the mandated high-level meeting will be closely watched by the legal community as a litmus test of the government's response to the judiciary's urgent call for structural reform.