Supreme Court Gives State ‘Last Chance’ to Justify Trial Delays in Surendra Gadling’s UAPA Bail Plea

New Delhi – The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday granted the State of Maharashtra a "last opportunity" to file its affidavit in the bail plea of lawyer-activist Surendra Gadling, who is challenging his prolonged incarceration in the 2016 Gadchiroli arson case. The bench, comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi, underscored its impatience with the state's repeated delays, a central theme in a case that brings the conflict between national security legislation and the fundamental right to a speedy trial into sharp focus.

Surendra Gadling, who has been in custody since June 2018 in connection with the separate but related Bhima Koregaon case, is seeking bail in the Gadchiroli matter where he is accused of conspiring with Maoists to set fire to over 80 vehicles. Senior Advocate Anand Grover, representing Gadling, vehemently objected to the state’s request for more time, highlighting a pattern of procedural lethargy.

“About 6 weeks have passed since the State was asked to file the affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay in trial,” Mr. Grover contended before the bench. He further argued that the state has failed to address critical issues, such as the necessity of splitting the trial from co-accused who remain at large, which is a significant factor contributing to the judicial logjam.

Despite these objections, the court, at the behest of Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, granted the state a final week to submit the crucial document. The matter has been re-listed for the next hearing, where the state's response, or lack thereof, will be under intense scrutiny.

The Core Legal Conundrum: UAPA, Bail, and Inordinate Delays

This case serves as a critical examination of bail jurisprudence under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Gadling's appeal to the Supreme Court comes after the Bombay High Court denied him bail, finding a prima facie case against him based on evidence including seized letters and a hard drive. The High Court had concluded that Gadling was not merely providing legal counsel to members of the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist), but was an active and formal member of the organization, thus allegedly involved in a conspiracy to commit terrorist acts.

However, the focus of the current Supreme Court proceedings has shifted significantly towards the state's conduct and the palpable delay in trial proceedings. This pivot was initiated in September 2023, when a previous bench raised fundamental questions about the nature of pre-trial detention. The court had pointedly asked whether an individual can be held in custody indefinitely as an undertrial, effectively serving a sentence without conviction.

To this end, the Court had directed the State of Maharashtra to provide specific information on four key points:

1. The explicit reasons for the delay in the trial's commencement and progress.

2. The cause for the non-disposal of discharge applications filed by the accused.

3. The prosecution's proposed scheme for conducting the trial, including a strategy for splitting the trial from absconding co-accused.

4. A projected timeline within which the prosecution expects to complete the trial.

The state’s failure to file an affidavit addressing these queries for over six weeks has now become the central point of contention, strengthening the argument that the delay is unreasonable and prejudicial to the accused.

A Web of Cases: Gadchiroli and Bhima Koregaon

Surendra Gadling's legal battles are multifaceted. While the current appeal pertains to the 2016 Gadchiroli arson, he was initially arrested and has been primarily held in connection with the Bhima Koregaon-Elgar Parishad case of 2018. In that case, he and several other activists, academics, and lawyers are accused by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) of having Maoist links and conspiring to incite violence.

He has been lodged in Taloja prison since June 2018 for the Bhima Koregaon case and was formally arrested in the Gadchiroli case in February 2019. This dual prosecution under UAPA in both state and central agency cases complicates his legal status and highlights the overlapping nature of the allegations against him.

His attempts to secure bail have been consistently thwarted. In December 2021, the Bombay High Court granted default bail to his co-accused Sudha Bharadwaj in the Bhima Koregaon case but rejected it for Gadling and eight others. More recently, in early 2024, the High Court also dismissed his default bail application in the same case. This history of bail denials underscores the high threshold set by Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which bars the granting of bail if the court finds, upon a perusal of the case diary or report, that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accusation against such a person is prima facie true.

Implications for the Justice System and Legal Practitioners

The Supreme Court’s handling of Gadling’s plea is being closely watched by the legal community for several reasons. Firstly, it may set a precedent on how courts should balance the stringent provisions of UAPA with the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial. If the court grants bail primarily on the grounds of prolonged incarceration and trial delays, it could signal a more robust judicial check on the state’s power to detain individuals indefinitely under anti-terror laws.

Secondly, the court's insistence on a concrete "scheme of prosecution" and a trial timeline from the state could empower undertrials in similar situations to demand greater accountability and expedition from prosecuting agencies. This moves the debate beyond the prima facie merits of the case to the procedural fairness of the process itself.

For criminal law practitioners, the case illustrates the strategic importance of meticulously documenting trial delays and leveraging them as a substantive ground for bail, even in UAPA cases. The questions posed by the Supreme Court provide a clear template for arguments that can be advanced when faced with an unending pre-trial process. As the case returns to the Supreme Court's docket, the State of Maharashtra's response will be pivotal in determining not only Surendra Gadling's liberty but also the evolving jurisprudence on undertrial rights in India.