Until a Special Court is constituted by the State Government under NIA Act, Court of Sessions would have the jurisdiction to try offences punishable under UAPA: SC

While hearing The State of West Bengal vs. Jayeeta Das case on April 18, 2024, the Supreme Court (SC) held that the Court of Sessions would have the jurisdiction to try offences punishable under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), until a Special Court is constituted by the State Government. The matter was heard by a two-judge bench of the SC constituting Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta. The issues addressed by the top court during the proceedings on April 18 were, “Whether the court of sessions was entitled to entertain an application for extension of the period of remand in terms of the proviso to Section 43D (5) of the UAPA when no special court had been notified by the State of West Bengal under Section 22(1) of the National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act).” and “Whether the petitioner could have been remanded by the learned Magistrate after offences under UAPA had been added.” 

The top court was hearing an appeal filed by the State of West Bengal for assailing the legality and validity of the judgment dated May 11, 2023, passed by the High Court of Calcutta. The HC held that “only a Special Court constituted as per the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 had the exclusive jurisdiction to try the offences under UAPA.” It added, “As per Section 16 of the NIA Act, the Sessions Court was precluded from taking cognizance of the offences under UAPA and thus the order and all subsequent proceedings taken thereunder were without jurisdiction.” After hearing the matter, the SC stated that “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.” 

Along with this, the SC bench also held that “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, authorizing remand beyond such period would be required by virtue of Section 43D(2) of UAPA.” Therefore, the top court said that the impugned judgment dated 11th May 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta HC could not be sustained; therefore, it was reversed and set aside.