Earlier this month, the Supreme Court directed the setting up of exclusive NIA courts to enable timebound disposal of UAPA trials. “If there are more than 15 trials pending within the jurisdiction of a particular High Court… two courts will be set up. Whereas, where trials exceed 25, three courts will be set up,” a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ordered.This followed a Court order that judges presiding over NIA courts not be burdened with additional work.If a court stands as a stark contrast to this, it is the one headed by Special NIA Judge Prashant Sharma at Patiala House Court in Delhi. The most sensitive NIA cases are heard in the Capital, which has just one other NIA court besides Justice Sharma’s.Also Read | Deliver verdicts within 3 months, upload bail orders same day: Supreme Court to High CourtsAppointed on November 20, 2025, Justice Sharma is the fifth judge to head the Patiala House NIA court since September 2022. Its four previous presiding judges spent an average of 11 months each in the post.There are 43 NIA cases pending before the court being tried under the UAPA — ranging from terrorism and cross-border conspiracy to radicalisation — apart from others involving money laundering and other charges. Of these 43 cases, in seven, Judge Sharma is hearing arguments afresh, with the accused and the NIA having almost completed their arguments before the previous judges were transferred. One of these cases was registered in 2017.Also Read | Bail under UAPA: How different Supreme Court benches have delivered different rulings in the pastIn these seven cases, it is the second or third time that hearings are being held afresh, and involve 87 accused, with arguments on charges against 32 still pending.At 81 cases, including 43 under the UAPA and 38 not lodged by the NIA, the NIA court headed by Judge Sharma is hearing eight times the number recommended by the Supreme Court (10 per judge). Over 2017, 2018 and 2019, the average disposal time of a case in this NIA court was seven, four and three years, respectively (against the Supreme Court’s “expectation” of one month). Eight cases in all were disposed of in this period.Story continues below this adOn an average, Justice Sharma has held 19 hearings in these NIA cases, with a total of 132 hearings across the 43 cases.A defence counsel for some of the accused told The Indian Express on the condition of anonymity: “The frequent transfer of judges causes delay… The process is prolonged especially in complex cases with a large number of accused persons.” Since getting bail in terror cases is extremely difficult, a delay also means longer incarceration as an undertrial.Also Read | Knowledge Nugget | What are parole, furlough and anticipatory bail?Special Public Prosecutor Rahul Tyagi, who is representing the NIA in many of these cases, is on the same side as the defence counsel on this, adding that if the new NIA courts come up, “the distribution of cases in them should be done in a manner that partly heard cases are not impacted and continue to stay with the current judge (concerned)”.Section 11 of the NIA Act, incidentally, empowers the Central government to enable a judge to continue trying the case even if he retires, to ensure continuity and speedy trial.Story continues below this adOn March 24, the Supreme Court first asked 17 states, including Delhi, to try and ensure that trials in UAPA (or terror) cases were completed within one year. The Division Bench of CJI Kant and Justice Bagchi also said states may set up dedicated NIA courts if more than 10 cases were pending under the jurisdiction of its High Court.“There may be a case where one matter may take more than one month to conclude. But we are expecting that, on an average, one NIA case is concluded in a month. For this, you need to have day-to-day hearing,” the apex court said. It also directed that NIA courts “should exclusively deal with UAPA or other related trials and that such Presiding Officers should not be entrusted with any other cases”.The Bench passed these directions while hearing a suo motu case registered in January, to oversee the creation of special courts to tackle the pendency of trials under special laws such as the UAPA. At the time, it was hearing a challenge to a Delhi High Court order denying bail to Md Heydaitullah, an alleged ISIS member accused of radicalising youths through cyberspace.Heydaitullah and his seven co-accused had started arguments before the previous judge, who got transferred and now the hearing has re-commenced before Judge Sharma.Story continues below this adAlso Read | On UAPA and bail, the Supreme Court must heed the rule it laid downThe 10 cases where Justice Sharma is hearing arguments afresh, including seven under the NIA, include:A 2017 case against Laskhar-e-Taiba chief Mohd Hafeez Saeed for alleged terror funding.A 2020 case of an alleged al-Qaeda module operating across West Bengal and Kerala.A 2021 case pertaining to alleged publication and dissemination of an “ISIS-linked” digital magazine.A 2021 case against gangster and designated terrorist Lawrence Bishnoi and 19 others, over allegations of running a vast trans-border empire involved in contract killings and extortion.Two 2021 cases against Sukesh Chandrashekhar pertaining to allegations of a Rs 200-crore extortion racket.A 2022 case against Oma Salam, the then chairman of the now banned Popular Front of India (PFI), of alleged “transnational conspiracy” to raise funds and of holding “radicalisation” training camps.A 2022 case against Canada-based Arshdeep Dalla, of alleged involvement with the Khalistan Tiger Force (KTF).A 2023 case related to ethnic violence in Manipur.A 2024 case involving human trafficking and cyber-slavery allegations.with inputs by Vineet Bhalla