Supreme Court’s Directive on Special Courts for UAPA Trials The Supreme Court issued a suo motu order compelling 17 states and Union Territories to identify the number of exclusive courts needed to ensure that trials under the UAPA are concluded within one year. The order also stresses the role of High Courts, investigative agencies, and the appointment of dedicated prosecutors. Key Developments States must submit, within four weeks, a concrete count of exclusive courts required for day‑to‑day UAPA trials, with a categorical commitment that each case be disposed of within 12 months. The High Courts are instructed to procure adequate judicial staff for these courts. The NIA , CBI , and other agencies must ensure at least one dedicated Public Prosecutor for each special court. Where prosecutor shortages exist, the Union and State governments must notify Special Public Prosecutors (SPPs) in consultation with the respective High Courts. A pilot project, based on the Union’s Office Memorandum dated 07.01.2026 , sees each of the 17 states initially establishing one exclusive court for NIA/UAPA matters with central financial assistance. The Court also mandated a separate mechanism to evaluate the ACRs of presiding officers in these courts, given their atypical workload. Important Facts The order was delivered by a bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi . Additional Solicitor Generals Aishwarya Bhati and SD Sanjay , along with the Advocate Generals of the 17 states, appeared before the Court. Earlier, in September 2025, the Court had recommended increasing the cadre strength of judicial officers rather than reallocating existing judges, to avoid overburdening regular courts. In November 2025, it urged the Union to devise a pan‑India mechanism for speedy disposal of special‑statute cases within six months. The present order also seeks responses from the Registrars General of the 17 states, underscoring the administrative coordination required. UPSC Relevance Understanding the Court’s intervention is vital for GS2 (Polity & Governance) as it illustrates judicial activism, federal‑state coordination, and the functioning of special courts. The discussion of MCOCA alongside UAPA highlights the broader challenge of handling terrorism‑related offences. The role of investigative agencies like NIA and CBI is pertinent for questions on law‑enforcement architecture. For GS4 (Ethics & Integrity), the emphasis on dedicated prosecutors and performance appraisal (ACR) of judges reflects concerns about accountability and efficiency in the justice system. Way Forward States should conduct a rapid audit of pending UAPA cases and map required court infrastructure. High Courts must fast‑track recruitment of judicial officers, court staff, and prosecutors to operationalise the exclusive courts. The Union should formalise the financial assistance model and establish a central monitoring cell to track trial timelines. A uniform ACR evaluation framework for presiding officers should be drafted in consultation with the Judicial Academy. Periodic review mechanisms, possibly through a Supreme Court‑led committee, can ensure adherence to the one‑year disposal target. Effective implementation will not only reduce pendency in terrorism‑related cases but also strengthen public confidence in the judicial system, a key objective of India’s democratic governance.