Delay in NIA trials: Supreme Court issues notice to 17 states

The Supreme Court has sought a response from the Chief Secretaries of 17 States/ UTs on the establishing of Special NIA Courts, considering the increased pendency of NIA trials.

The bench CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and NV Anjaria was hearing the issue of delays in NIA trials, considering the backlog of cases before the district courts.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhatti, appearing for the Union, informed the bench that Union has issued certain norms for providing financial assistance of Rs. 1 Crores each for recurring and non-recurring expenditure incurred on setting up of exclusive Special Courts on a reimbursement basis, subject to actuals for the concerned states.

The bench was further informed that in the states of Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Gujarat, J&K, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Manipur, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Rajasthan and Telangana more than 10 NIA trials were pending. 

Noting this the bench ordered: "Let notice be issued to all the 17 states where more than 10 NIA trials are pending. Notice is to be sent to the respective Chief Secretaries of the States. The Advocate Generals of the above-mentioned states are directed to remain present in the Court, maybe personally or through online."

Recently Supreme Court while hearing a challenge to a Delhi High Court order denying bail to an alleged member of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), accused by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) of radicalising youths through cyberspace had expressed concern over systemic delays in NIA prosecutions and the lack of adequate judicial infrastructure to handle such cases.

During the hearing, the CJI had observed that the real challenge lay in building a robust institutional mechanism that would reduce the need for repeated physical production of accused persons before courts. He noted that such efficiency could only be achieved if additional courts were set up to exclusively deal with NIA cases. “The idea is how do you make a robust mechanism that none of them are required to come to the courts. That will happen when additional courts are set up,” the CJI had remarked.

The Bench had also indicated that structural reforms could be expedited if there was clarity and commitment at the administrative level. The CJI suggested that if the authorities could formalise a clear position by February 10 on whether sanction alone was sufficient to operationalise new courts, High Courts could then proceed with recruitment and appointments.

In view of the wider implications, the Bench directed that the bail matter be listed on February 10, 2026, along with a pending suo motu case concerning delays in NIA trials and matters relating to MP-MLA courts.

Delhi High Court in January 2025, had dismissed an appeal filed by Md Heydaitullah challenging the order of the Trial Court dismissing his bail application. As Per the National Investigating Agency, the appellant conspired to ‘establish Sharia law in India under the flag of ISIS by waging Jihad’. The bench of Justice Pratibha M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma, referring to the appellant’s chats on various online groups had noted that “it is not a case of passive support to a terrorist organisation, but rather the chats, as highlighted hereinabove, show that the Appellant was advocating Jihad in order to establish Khilafat (“Caliphate)”.

Court had noted that the trial court had not yet framed the charges against the appellant. “Thus, in order to assess and find justifications for grant or non-grant of bail to the Appellant, the material collected and filed along with chargesheet by the NIA needs to be examined”, the Court had noted. It had observed that the Appellant had taken an oath (Bayath) in the name of Abu Bakr al Baghdadi and Abu al-Hasan al-Hashimi al-Qurashi, both of whom were acknowledged leaders of ISIS. According to the chargesheet, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi announced the formation of a "caliphate" in June 2014. The Court, referring to the chats of the appellant and the incriminating images retrieved from the mobile phone had observed, “that the Appellant was not just a passive supporter of ISIS, but was determined to further its activities by influencing other individuals at various platforms”. The court further noted that ISIS is a known terrorist organization and that ‘the world at large knows about the activities of ISIS’.

Case Title: Md Heydaitullah v. National Investigation Agency

Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and NV Anjaria

Hearing Date: February 12, 2026