Back
Supreme Court Directs Centre and States to Establish 449 Exclusive NDPS Courts Within Six Weeks
Alarmed by a
"spectacular and unfortunate alarming increase"
in narcotics offences across the country, the
on Monday directed the
and all
to take immediate steps to establish 449 exclusive special courts for the trial of cases under the
. The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana, set a tight deadline of six weeks for the creation of these courts, emphasising that the current pendency and rising crime rates demanded urgent judicial action.
The order was passed in the ongoing proceedings, titled , which was initiated to ensure under special statutes, including the NDPS Act, the , the , and the Act. The Court had previously directed the authorities to assess requirements for with a one-year completion target. The latest directive marks a significant escalation in .
The NDPS Court Deficit: 176 Operational Against 449 Required
Taking on record a status report filed by the
, the Court noted that as of the hearing, only 176 of the required 449 exclusive NDPS courts were operational across the country. This leaves a gap of 273 courts that must be established to handle the burgeoning caseload. The bench expressed deep concern, recording in its order:
"Having regard to the current pendency of cases under the NDPS Act and the alarming increase in offences under the Act across the country, it is expedient and in the interest of justice that the requisite 449 exclusive NDPS courts be established at the earliest."
The Court directed all to urgently arrange the necessary court infrastructure and to appoint judicial and administrative staff to bridge the deficit. The timeline of six weeks was chosen to match the urgency underscored by the data. Earlier reports had suggested a six-month window, but the bench, after hearing submissions, tightened the timeline to six weeks, citing the "unfortunate alarming increase" that made prompt action imperative.
NIA Court Progress: Mixed Results Across States
The hearing also took stock of the progress in establishing exclusive courts for cases under . , representing the NIA, informed the Court that since the last hearing, eight new NIA courts had been established, bringing the total to 22. However, she flagged delays in Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Telangana, where not a single exclusive NIA court had been set up. The Court responded by issuing specific timelines for each state.
Karnataka : The Advocate General submitted that the state proposes to set up three exclusive NIA courts, likely to be notified within two weeks. The Court recorded this commitment.
Kerala : Orders had been issued for two special exclusive courts, but the High Court sought a few months to set up infrastructure. The CJI remarked that Kerala has a "pro-active High Court" and should not delay. The Court refused to grant more than four weeks, directing the courts to become functional within one month.
Tamil Nadu : With 28 pending NIA cases, the state informed that one court is already operational and a second will become operational within two weeks.
Telangana : The state submitted that only one exclusive court is needed, given 13 pending NIA cases. The CJI urged the state to avail central funding, and the Court ordered the court to be established within two weeks.
Assam : One exclusive NIA court has been notified and is functional, with a proposal for two more under consideration. The Court directed expeditious action within four weeks.
Jammu & Kashmir : With 47 pending NIA cases, the region requires four courts. Only one has been notified. The state suggested redesignating existing district courts, but the CJI insisted on exclusive courts. Two additional courts will become functional shortly.
West Bengal : submitted that the state has 50 pending cases under , with two exclusive courts currently functioning and three more needed. The Court directed the Union and the state to take steps for the establishment of the additional three courts.
Uttarakhand : No pendency, but a designated court exists.
Uttar Pradesh : 776 NIA cases, with four under Section 11. One dedicated court is operational in Lucknow.
Bihar : 16 pending cases, with two exclusive courts functional.
Odisha : Five pending cases under Section 11. The High Court proposed 12 courts for all NIA/UAPA cases, but the Court found one court sufficient for the five Section 11 cases and ordered its establishment within four weeks.
and the
The Supreme Court’s proactive stance underscores its commitment to the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under . The creation of exclusive courts is a structural remedy designed to tackle the specific challenges of complex and voluminous cases under special statutes. Legal experts note that the NDPS Act, with its and large number of undertrials, has long been a source of judicial backlog. By mandating dedicated courts, the Court aims to reduce pendency and ensure that trials are completed within a .
The order also highlights the aspect, with the central government providing financial support and the states responsible for infrastructure and staffing. The bench’s detailed state-by-state review indicates a no-nonsense approach, with strict deadlines and public accountability.
Impact on Legal Practice and the Justice System
For practising lawyers, the directive means a surge in the establishment of specialised benches, likely leading to faster disposal of NDPS and NIA cases. This may require advocates to adapt to new court procedures and increased caseloads in these exclusive courts. Public prosecutors and defence counsel will need to be prepared for accelerated trial schedules, possibly with daily hearings.
From a systemic perspective, the creation of 449 NDPS courts represents a massive infrastructural undertaking. The , along with state governments, must now expedite the recruitment of judges, court staff, and the provision of courtrooms. The will need to track the progress to ensure compliance. Failure to meet the six-week deadline could invite , as the Court has demonstrated its willingness to enforce its orders.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s directive marks a watershed moment in the fight against narcotics trafficking and terrorism-related cases. By setting a clear and ambitious timeline, the bench has sent a strong message: judicial lethargy will not be tolerated, and the is non-negotiable. As the six-week deadline approaches, all eyes will be on the states and the Centre to deliver on their commitments. The judiciary, through its jurisdiction, continues to act as a catalyst for systemic reform, ensuring that the scales of justice are balanced not only in substance but also in speed.
