Gangster-Linked Trials|‘Hardened Criminals Benefit’: Supreme Court Flags NCR Jurisdiction Loopholes

The Bench of Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that in serious offences under Central penal laws, organised criminals often take undue advantage of jurisdictional complexities.

The CJI noted that offences frequently originate in one State and continue or spill over into another, leading to uncertainty over which court or investigative agency should take cognisance. “In matters of grave offences under Central penal laws, where organised criminals are involved, they take undue advantage of jurisdictional issues in the NCR. Sometimes the offence originates in one State and the offender moves to another. Which court or agency should take cognisance for prompt investigation or which court has competent jurisdiction itself becomes an issue in the criminal trial,” the CJI observed.

The Bench cautioned that such ambiguity ultimately benefits hardened criminals, a consequence that may not be in the interest of society or the nation. Stressing the systemic nature of the problem, the CJI said the issue requires serious consideration, including the desirability of formulating effective laws to ensure better utilisation of the existing legal architecture.

The Court was hearing a matter concerning the mounting pendency of gangster-related and organised crime trials in Delhi and examining whether dedicated special courts are needed to ensure their timely disposal.

During the hearing, the CJI suggested that special courts dealing with UAPA and NIA cases should function “like an emergency ward”, focusing exclusively on such trials when they are taken up.

The Bench also explored the possibility of legislative solutions to address NCR-wide jurisdictional overlaps. The CJI questioned why a legal framework similar to the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act could not be extended or adapted to cover the entire NCR, so that offences committed near inter-State borders could be tried by a designated court without procedural delays.

Justice Bagchi underscored that existing statutory mechanisms could already be leveraged in appropriate cases. He pointed out that the National Investigation Agency Act provides a possible solution where multiple FIRs are registered across different States in cases involving organised crime. “You can explore the NIA Act in such cases. Where there are multiple FIRs in different States, the NIA has supervening power to take over all investigations, particularly in organised crime brackets,” Justice Bagchi observed.

The Court had also expressed concern over the Centre’s approach, with the CJI disapproving of the Union Home Secretary asking States to take the issue up with their respective High Courts, instead of addressing the problem at a structural or legislative level.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Union, had informed the Court that States with a high volume of NIA trials have been identified, including Kerala and Bihar, and that draft norms and official communications are already on record.

The Bench noted that around 16 new courts are likely to be established in Delhi in the coming months, which could aid in better distribution of cases. It also suggested a geographic spread of special courts across the NCR; such as NIA courts in Delhi, PMLA courts in Noida, and others in Gurgaon, to ensure efficiency and prevent accused persons from gaining an advantage due to jurisdictional technicalities.

The matter remains under consideration as the Supreme Court continues to examine both judicial and legislative pathways to address jurisdictional conflicts and delays in the prosecution of organised crime.

Case Title: Mahesh Khatri @ Bholi v. State NCT of Delhi