loader image

SC Directs Karnataka to Set Up Exclusive Special Court For Trial of PFI Accused in Radicalisation and Terror Funding Case

SC Directs Karnataka to Set Up Exclusive Special Court For Trial of PFI Accused in Radicalisation and Terror Funding Case

Shahid Khan v. State of Karnataka, SLP (Crl.) No. 6100 of 2026 [Order dated August 12, 2026]

UAPA Special Court Karnataka

The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the State of Karnataka to establish an exclusive special court for the day-to-day trial in the UAPA case against Shahid Khan, an accused in a case alleging extremist activities linked to the Popular Front of India (PFI).

A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, while considering Khan’s plea for bail, noted that the accused has been in custody for nearly four years, while only a limited number of the prosecution witnesses are stated to be relevant to him. The Court was informed that of the 707 witnesses proposed by the prosecution, about 50 concern him, including only three of the protected witnesses.

Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana

Shahid Khan, arrayed as Accused No. 14, is being prosecuted under provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and the Indian Penal Code in a case alleging that PFI office-bearers and members conspired to radicalise Muslim youth, raise funds for unlawful activities and wage war against the Government. The prosecution also alleges that the conspiracy formed part of a broader plan involving terrorist activities and is linked to the murder of BJP Yuva Morcha leader Praveen Nettaru.

Also Read: ‘Life of an Undertrial Is Not 300 Years’: SC Questions Delay in Trial of PFI Accused in Radicalisation and Terror Funding Case

The State had submitted that the delay in the proceedings was not attributable to the prosecution and that the accused had repeatedly moved interim bail and discharge applications. The State also agreed to abide by directions aimed at expediting the trial.

The Court, however, emphasised that given the enormous number of witnesses and the period already spent in custody, the trial would have to proceed on a day-to-day basis. The Bench observed that unless the trial was conducted continuously, it would be practically impossible to conclude it within a reasonable period.

“Taking into consideration the particular circumstances of this case where the prosecution proposes to examine 707 witnesses, including more than 64 protected witnesses, it seems to us that unless the trial is taken on day-to-day basis, it will be practically impossible to conclude the trial within a reasonable time.”

Accordingly, the Court directed the State of Karnataka to immediately provide the requisite infrastructure, including creation of an additional post in the Karnataka Higher Judicial Services, along with the required staff and allied facilities. The necessary sanctions were directed to be provided within two weeks. The Court further directed the Karnataka High Court to spare a judicial officer to constitute the special court, which would exclusively deal with UAPA cases on a day-to-day basis. The Bench clarified that the Shahid Khan trial would also be entrusted to this special court.

“We are satisfied that the State of Karnataka is obligated to establish a special court where the case can be taken up on day-to-day basis, exclusively trying UAPA cases. Consequently, we direct the State of Karnataka to immediately provide the requisite infrastructure, including creation of one additional post in the Karnataka Higher Judicial Services, along with the requisite staff and other allied facilities that may be required as per the norms fixed by the High Court.”

The special court has been directed to first examine the three protected witnesses relevant to Khan, followed by the other witnesses, so as to ensure that the material evidence is recorded expeditiously.

The Court also stressed that both sides must cooperate with the special court. The prosecution was asked to ensure the presence of its witnesses, while the accused and his co-accused were cautioned against prolonging the proceedings.

As regards the petitioner’s bail plea, the Court indicated that after the examination of the three protected witnesses, the accused would have liberty to renew his prayer for bail before the appropriate court.