The Supreme Court on Wednesday examined a bail petition filed by human rights lawyer Surendra Gadling in connection with the 2016 Surajgarh mine arson case, expressing prima facie concern over prolonged stagnation of the trial and signalling judicial intervention to arrest further procedural inertia.
The Bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi took up the matter and deliberated on institutional measures to revive the trial, which has remained largely in abeyance for years.
The Court noted that the right to a speedy trial, an intrinsic facet of Article 21 of the Constitution as consistently recognised in precedents such as Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar and P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, warranted close scrutiny in the present case.
Appearing for Gadling, Senior Advocate Anand Grover submitted that the delay was systemic and chronic, rather than incidental. He pointed out that repeated attempts to secure Gadling’s production before the trial court had failed, either due to non-functional virtual hearing facilities or because applications transmitted to the sessions court were not taken up for consideration.
The defence contended that these lapses had effectively paralysed progress at the stage of framing of charges.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju opposed the bail plea on the grounds that no delay could be attributed to the investigating agency or the State. He argued that the prosecution was prepared to proceed and that the bottlenecks lay elsewhere.
Having perused the record, the Bench observed that it was inclined to chart a pragmatic course to break the deadlock. The Court indicated that it was considering directing a responsible officer to place the entire trial record before it, enabling both sides to inspect the material within a stipulated timeframe.
The Bench further outlined that the process of framing charges, fixing a trial schedule, and advancing arguments could be undertaken in a time-bound manner, with the matter to be relisted thereafter.
The defence, however, flagged logistical and legal impediments, particularly in relation to voluminous electronic evidence governed by the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the rules on digital evidence under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
It was submitted that copies of such material were not readily accessible and that meaningful inspection would necessitate Gadling’s physical production, given his continued incarceration. Grover contended that expecting the defence to examine an extensive record within a week was unrealistic and risked diluting the accused’s right to an effective defence.
Emphasising the gravity of continued pre-trial detention, Grover submitted that Gadling had remained in custody for nearly seven years without adjudication on merits, invoking the Supreme Court’s consistent jurisprudence that prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial militates against constitutional guarantees, as reiterated in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb. He sought liberty to press the bail plea substantively if the proposed course failed to yield tangible progress within a month.
The Bench assured that such liberty would be preserved. It also indicated that it would ascertain from the registry whether a presiding judge was currently posted in the designated NIA court at Mumbai, where the case is pending.
The Court further stated that it would engage with the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court to ensure that vacancies in trial courts were promptly filled and that cases under special statutes did not languish due to administrative gaps.
The proceedings are set against the backdrop of strong opposition previously recorded from the State and the Union. The prosecution has consistently alleged that Gadling is a senior operative of a proscribed Maoist organisation and has sought to rely on documentary material seized in the Bhima Koregaon investigation to establish his alleged role in the Surajgarh incident.
The State argued that such material is legally admissible across proceedings and that the arson, which allegedly involved the burning of 39 vehicles transporting iron ore, was part of a larger insurgent strategy to impede development activities in Gadchiroli.
The incident attracted offences under the Indian Penal Code, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the Maharashtra Police Act, and the Arms Act, following which the investigation was taken over by the National Investigation Agency.
In January 2023, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court had rejected Gadling’s bail plea.
The Supreme Court is now seized of the matter amid mounting concerns over trial delays, judicial vacancies, and the constitutional implications of extended undertrial detention under stringent anti-terror legislation.
The post Surajgarh Arson case: Supreme Court flags trial delay in Surendra Gadling bail plea appeared first on India Legal.