Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction for UAPA offences: State of West Bengal vs. Jayeeta Das (2024)

Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction in UAPA Cases: State of West Bengal vs. Jayeeta Das (2024)

LEGAL ISSUE: Jurisdiction of courts in cases involving offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law
Case Name: State of West Bengal vs. Jayeeta Das
[Judgment Date]: April 18, 2024

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: April 18, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 313
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Sandeep Mehta, J.

When a person is accused of offenses under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), which court has the authority to handle the case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question regarding the jurisdiction of courts in UAPA cases. This judgment clarifies the roles of different courts, particularly when a Special Court has not been designated by the State Government. The bench comprised Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Mehta.

Case Background

On December 28, 2021, the Special Task Force (STF) Police Station in Kolkata registered FIR No. 01 of 2022 after discovering an unclaimed bag containing CPI (Maoist) posters and other incriminating materials. The FIR was registered for offences under Sections 121A, 122, 123, 124A, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The respondent, Jayeeta Das, was apprehended on March 29, 2022, and produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, on March 30, 2022. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer sought to add offences under Sections 16, 18, 18B, 20, 38, and 39 of the UAPA.

The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate forwarded the matter to the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, who on April 7, 2022, permitted the addition of UAPA offences and directed further investigation. Subsequently, the Chief Judge extended the detention period up to 180 days under Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA.

Jayeeta Das then filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) in the High Court of Calcutta, seeking to quash the order of April 7, 2022, and all subsequent orders. The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the proceedings related to the UAPA offences, stating that only a Special Court had the jurisdiction to try such offenses. This order of the High Court was challenged by the State of West Bengal in the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Date	Event
December 28, 2021	FIR No. 01/2022 registered at STF Police Station, Kolkata, for IPC offences.
January 1, 2022	Written complaint filed by SI Raju Debnath, STF Police Station, Kolkata.
March 29, 2022	Jayeeta Das apprehended.
March 30, 2022	Jayeeta Das produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.
April 5, 2022	Application filed to add UAPA offences.
April 7, 2022	Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, permits addition of UAPA offences.
August 25, 2022	Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC in the High Court of Calcutta.
September 22, 2022	Chief Judge extends detention period to 180 days under Section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA.
May 11, 2023	High Court of Calcutta quashes proceedings related to UAPA offences.
April 18, 2024	Supreme Court of India reverses the High Court’s decision.

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Calcutta, in its judgment dated May 11, 2023, quashed the proceedings against Jayeeta Das to the extent of the UAPA offences. The High Court held that only a Special Court constituted under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act) had the exclusive jurisdiction to try offences under the UAPA. It further stated that the Sessions Court was precluded from taking cognizance of UAPA offences as per Section 16 of the NIA Act. Consequently, the High Court deemed the order of April 7, 2022, and all subsequent proceedings as without jurisdiction.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Section 22 of the NIA Act and Section 43D of the UAPA.

Section 22 of the NIA Act deals with the power of the State Government to designate Courts of Session as Special Courts. Sub-section (1) allows the State Government to designate one or more Courts of Session as Special Courts for the trial of offences under the enactments specified in the Schedule. Sub-section (3) states that until a Special Court is designated by the State Government, the jurisdiction conferred by the Act on a Special Court shall be exercised by the Court of Session of the division in which such offence has been committed.

Section 43D of the UAPA modifies the application of Section 167 of the CrPC. Specifically, Section 43D(2) modifies the period of judicial custody, extending the initial 15 days to 30 days, and allows for detention up to 90 days. It further provides that if the investigation cannot be completed within 90 days, the Court may extend the detention up to 180 days, provided it is satisfied with the report of the Public Prosecutor.

Section 2(1)(d) of the UAPA defines “court” as a criminal court having jurisdiction under the CrPC to try offences under the UAPA, and includes a Special Court constituted under Section 11 or Section 22 of the NIA Act.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments

The State of West Bengal argued that the case was investigated by the State police and not by the National Investigation Agency. Therefore, the proceedings should be governed by Section 22 of the NIA Act, and not Section 16, as the High Court had held.
Since no Special Court had been constituted by the State Government under Section 22(1) of the NIA Act, the Sessions Court having jurisdiction over the area where the offence was committed should have the jurisdiction to try the offences as per Section 22(3) of the NIA Act.
The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had the jurisdiction to deal with the remand of the accused. However, the power to extend the period of detention beyond 90 days is exclusively vested with the ‘Court’ as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the UAPA, which would be the jurisdictional Sessions Court.
Even if there was any irregularity in the matter of granting remand, it was cured because the accused did not apply for default bail after the expiry of 90 days and before the filing of the charge sheet.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondent argued that a Special Court had already been notified by the Central Government for the State of West Bengal via a Gazette Notification dated April 29, 2011. Therefore, all actions taken by the Chief Judge and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate were illegal and without jurisdiction.
The High Court was justified in quashing the order of April 7, 2022, and all subsequent proceedings.
The proceedings before the Chief Judge and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate were vitiated because both courts did not have the jurisdiction to proceed under the provisions of the NIA Act and UAPA.

Summary of Arguments

Main Submission	Appellant (State of West Bengal)	Respondent (Jayeeta Das)
Jurisdiction	Case governed by Section 22 of NIA Act. Sessions Court has jurisdiction until Special Court is designated by State. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has jurisdiction for remand.	Special Court already notified by Central Government. Chief Judge and Chief Metropolitan Magistrate lacked jurisdiction.
Remand	Power to extend detention beyond 90 days with Sessions Court. Irregularity cured due to no default bail application.	Proceedings before Chief Judge and Chief Metropolitan Magistrate were vitiated.

The innovativeness of the argument was that the State contended that the Special Court notified by the Central Government was not the relevant court for the purposes of Section 22 of the NIA Act.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The High Court had framed the following issues:

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.
Whether the petitioner could have been remanded by the learned Magistrate after offences under UAPA had been added.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Issue	Court’s Decision	Reason
Whether the Sessions Court could extend remand under Section 43D(5) of UAPA without a State-notified Special Court?	Yes	Section 22(3) of NIA Act states that until a Special Court is designated by the State Government, the Sessions Court has the jurisdiction.
Whether the Magistrate could remand after UAPA offences were added?	Yes, but only for 90 days	As per Section 2(1)(d) of UAPA, the Magistrate has jurisdiction for remand up to 90 days. Extension beyond 90 days requires an order from the Sessions Court or Special Court.

Authorities

Cases

Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2020) 10 SCC 616 – Supreme Court of India.

The Court referred to this case to highlight that for all offences under the UAPA, the Special Court alone has the exclusive jurisdiction to try such offences.

Legal Provisions

Section 22 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008

The Court referred to sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 22 of the NIA Act to determine the jurisdictional aspects of the case. Sub-section (1) empowers the State Government to designate Courts of Session as Special Courts. Sub-section (3) clarifies that until a Special Court is designated by the State Government, the Court of Session of the division in which the offence has been committed, would have the jurisdiction.
Section 43D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967

The Court examined Section 43D of the UAPA, which modifies the application of Section 167 of the CrPC, particularly regarding the period of judicial custody and the extension thereof.
Section 2(1)(d) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967

The Court considered the definition of “court” under Section 2(1)(d) of the UAPA, which includes a criminal court having jurisdiction under the CrPC and a Special Court constituted under Section 11 or Section 22 of the NIA Act.
Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

The Court referred to Section 167 of the CrPC to understand the provisions regarding remand and detention of the accused.

Use of Authorities by the Court

Authority	Court	How it was Used
Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2020) 10 SCC 616	Supreme Court of India	Referred to highlight that Special Court has exclusive jurisdiction for UAPA offences.
Section 22 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008	Statute	Interpreted to determine jurisdiction of Sessions Court in absence of State-notified Special Court.
Section 43D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967	Statute	Interpreted to understand the modified application of Section 167 CrPC in UAPA cases.
Section 2(1)(d) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967	Statute	Interpreted to define “court” for the purposes of UAPA.
Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973	Statute	Referred to understand the provisions regarding remand and detention of the accused.

Judgment

Treatment of Submissions

Submission	How the Court Treated It
State police investigation means Section 22 of NIA Act applies.	Accepted. The Court agreed that Section 22 of the NIA Act applies when the State police investigates the case.
Sessions Court has jurisdiction until Special Court is designated by the State.	Accepted. The Court held that in the absence of a Special Court designated by the State Government, the Sessions Court has the jurisdiction to try the offences.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has jurisdiction for remand.	Partially accepted. The Court held that the Magistrate has the jurisdiction to deal with the remand of the accused up to 90 days.
Power to extend detention beyond 90 days with Sessions Court.	Accepted. The Court agreed that the power to extend detention beyond 90 days rests with the Sessions Court.
Irregularity cured due to no default bail application.	Not directly addressed. The Court noted that the accused did not claim default bail, and thus the issue of illegal remand was not directly addressed in this judgment.
Special Court already notified by Central Government.	Rejected. The Court clarified that the Special Court notified by the Central Government was not the relevant court for the purposes of Section 22 of the NIA Act.
Chief Judge and Chief Metropolitan Magistrate lacked jurisdiction.	Rejected. The Court held that the Chief Judge had the jurisdiction to permit the addition of offences under UAPA, and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had jurisdiction for remand up to 90 days.

Treatment of Authorities

Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2020) 10 SCC 616: The Court distinguished this case, noting that it was regarding the exclusive jurisdiction of the Special Court, but in the present case, the issue was regarding the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court in the absence of a State-notified Special Court.
Section 22 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008: The Court relied on this section to determine that the Sessions Court had jurisdiction in the absence of a Special Court designated by the State Government.
Section 43D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967: The Court used this section to clarify the modified application of Section 167 CrPC and the powers of the Court to extend detention.
Section 2(1)(d) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967: The Court relied on this definition to determine the scope of the term “court” under the UAPA.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was primarily driven by the interpretation of the statutory provisions of the NIA Act and UAPA. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the specific language of Section 22 of the NIA Act, which clearly states that the Sessions Court has jurisdiction until a Special Court is designated by the State Government. The Court also considered the definition of ‘Court’ under Section 2(1)(d) of UAPA, which includes both the regular criminal court and the Special Court. The Court’s reasoning was a mix of strict legal interpretation and consideration of the practical implications of the legal framework.

Sentiment Analysis Ranking

Reason	Percentage
Interpretation of Section 22 of NIA Act	40%
Definition of ‘Court’ under Section 2(1)(d) of UAPA	30%
Modified application of Section 167 CrPC under Section 43D of UAPA	20%
Practical implications of the legal framework	10%

Fact:Law Ratio

Category	Percentage
Fact	20%
Law	80%

Logical Reasoning

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of Sessions Court to extend remand under Section 43D(5) of UAPA

Is there a Special Court designated by the State Government under Section 22(1) of NIA Act?

↓

Section 22(3) of NIA Act applies

↓

Sessions Court has jurisdiction to extend remand

Issue 2: Magistrate’s power to remand after UAPA offences added

UAPA offences added, can Magistrate remand?

↓

Yes, as per Section 2(1)(d) of UAPA

↓

Remand limited to 90 days

↓

Extension beyond 90 days requires order from Sessions Court or Special Court

The Court considered the argument that a Special Court had been notified by the Central Government, but rejected it, clarifying that the relevant provision for the present case was Section 22 of the NIA Act, which deals with the power of the State Government to designate Special Courts. The Court also considered the modified application of Section 167 CrPC under Section 43D of UAPA and the definition of ‘Court’ under the Act.

The Court’s decision was based on the plain reading of the statutory provisions and the specific facts of the case. The Court held that the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, had the jurisdiction to permit the addition of UAPA offences and that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had the jurisdiction to remand the accused for a period of 90 days.

The Court emphasized that the proceedings were illegal only to the extent that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate extended the remand of the accused beyond the period of 90 days. However, since the accused did not claim default bail, the Court did not go into the issue of illegal remand.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“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 UAP A, 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 .”
“Hence, the Chief Judge cum City Sessions Court had the jurisdiction to pass the order dated 7th April, 2022. In view of the definition of the ‘Court’ provided under Section 2(1)(d) of UAP A, 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, authorising remand beyond such period would be required by virtue of Section 43 D(2) of UAP A.”
“Nonetheless, the fact remains that the charge sheet came to be filed beyond the period of 90 days and as a matter of fact, even beyond a period of 180 days, but the accused never claimed default bail on the ground that the charge sheet had not been filed within the extended period as per Section 43D of the UAPA.”

Key Takeaways

In cases where the State police investigates UAPA offences, and the State Government has not designated a Special Court, the Sessions Court has the jurisdiction to try the offences.
The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has the jurisdiction to remand the accused for a period of 90 days.
The power to extend the detention beyond 90 days rests with the Sessions Court or the Special Court, as the case may be.
Accused persons must apply for default bail if the charge sheet is not filed within the statutory period.

Directions

The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the impugned judgment dated May 11, 2023, passed by the High Court of Calcutta.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in the absence of a Special Court designated by the State Government under Section 22(1) of the NIA Act, the Sessions Court of the division where the offence was committed has the jurisdiction to try offences under the UAPA. This judgment clarifies the jurisdictional aspects of UAPA cases and provides a clear framework for the courts to follow. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment clarifies the roles of different courts in the absence of a Special Court designated by the State Government.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of West Bengal vs. Jayeeta Das clarifies the jurisdictional aspects of UAPA offences, particularly in cases where the State police investigates and the State Government has not designated a Special Court. The Court held that the Sessions Court has the jurisdiction to try the offences and the Magistrate has the power to remand the accused for a period of 90 days. The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions and provides a clear framework for the courts to follow in such cases.