Can Sessions Courts Handle UAPA Cases? SC Clarifies Jurisdiction!

Key Judicial Interpretation

The Supreme Court clarified that until a Special Court is constituted by the State Government under Section 22(1) of the NIA Act, the jurisdiction conferred on a Special Court shall be exercised by the Court of Session in which the offence was committed. This includes the power to add UAPA offences and to extend the detention of the accused (paras 24-25).

Court’s View

The Court held that the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings under UAPA, as the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta had the jurisdiction to handle the case until a Special Court was designated by the State Government. The decision by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to extend remand beyond 90 days was deemed illegal, but since the accused did not seek default bail, this did not invalidate the entire proceedings (paras 29-30, 37).

Conclusion

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the order of the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, and confirmed that the Sessions Court had the authority to proceed with the trial under UAPA until a Special Court was designated (paras 38-39).

Relevant Acts, Sections, Provisions, and Rules Cited

Sections 121A, 122, 123, 124A, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 16, 18, 18B, 20, 38, 39, 43D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Sections 11, 22 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.

Case of the Appellant

The appellant, the State of West Bengal, argued that the High Court erroneously quashed the UAPA proceedings by misinterpreting the jurisdictional provisions under the NIA Act. They asserted that the Sessions Court had the authority to add UAPA offences and extend the detention of the accused since no Special Court had been designated by the State Government.

Appellant Relied On

The appellant relied on the provisions of the NIA Act and UAPA, along with the legal principle that pending the designation of a Special Court, the Sessions Court has jurisdiction over UAPA cases.

Case of the Respondent

The respondent, Jayeeta Das, contended that the addition of UAPA offences and the extension of detention were illegal, as only a Special Court designated by the Central or State Government had the authority to handle UAPA cases.

Respondent Relied On

The respondent relied on the Gazette Notification dated 29th April, 2011, which designated a Special Court for UAPA offences in West Bengal, arguing that this precluded the Sessions Court from exercising jurisdiction.

Question & Answer

Question: What did the Supreme Court rule regarding the jurisdiction of Sessions Courts in UAPA cases when no Special Court is designated? Answer: The Supreme Court ruled that until a Special Court is designated by the State Government under Section 22(1) of the NIA Act, the jurisdiction conferred on a Special Court shall be exercised by the Sessions Court in which the offence was committed (paras 24-25).

Question: Why did the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment? Answer: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment because it incorrectly interpreted the jurisdictional provisions of the NIA Act and failed to recognize the Sessions Court’s authority in the absence of a designated Special Court (paras 38-39).

Question: What was the Supreme Court’s view on the extension of detention by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate? Answer: The Supreme Court deemed the extension of detention by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate beyond 90 days illegal but noted that the accused did not seek default bail, so this did not invalidate the entire proceedings (para 37).

Question: What was the final outcome of the appeal filed by the State of West Bengal? Answer: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reversed the High Court’s judgment, and upheld the proceedings conducted by the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta under UAPA (paras 38-39).

Question: How did the Supreme Court address the issue of the Gazette Notification dated 29th April, 2011? Answer: The Supreme Court clarified that the Gazette Notification constituted a Special Court under Section 11 of the NIA Act by the Central Government, not by the State Government under Section 22(1), which was necessary for jurisdiction under UAPA cases in the state (paras 27-28).

Details of Case

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Sandeep Mehta
Date of Order: April 18, 2024
Case Name: The State of West Bengal vs. Jayeeta Das
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. _____ of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 7880 of 2023)