7 Years, No Trial: Supreme Court Flags Prolonged Detention Of Activist Surendra Gadling Under UAPA

Last Updated:January 22, 2026, 06:17 IST

Gadling, a prominent human rights lawyer, was implicated in an incident where Maoists allegedly set fire to dozens of iron ore-transporting trucks in Gadchiroli, Maharashtra

Gadling’s counsel highlighted in the SC that the special court in Mumbai currently lacks a presiding judge to hear the matter and that the state had failed to provide necessary copies of electronic evidence to the accused. File pic/PTI

The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed grave concern over the prolonged detention of lawyer-activist Surendra Gadling, who has spent nearly seven years in prison without the commencement of his trial. Hearing a bail plea related to the 2016 Surajgarh arson case, a bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi indicated it would pass a formal order to expedite proceedings, noting that the judicial process had reached a near-standstill.

Gadling, a prominent human rights lawyer, was implicated in an incident where Maoists allegedly set fire to dozens of iron ore-transporting trucks in Gadchiroli, Maharashtra. He faces charges under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act or UAPA, alongside several sections of the Indian Penal Code. During the hearing, his counsel, Senior Advocate Anand Grover, delivered a sharp critique of the systemic delays, pointing out that Gadling has been in judicial custody since 2018. Grover highlighted that the special court in Mumbai currently lacks a presiding judge to hear the matter and that the state had failed to provide necessary copies of electronic evidence to the accused.

The bench took particular note of the vacuum in the special court. “We will first ascertain this fact from the registry if there is any judge in the NIA Court Mumbai. We will pass an order after talking to the Chief Justice [of the Bombay High Court] to ensure trial courts are not vacant,” the bench remarked. To break the procedural deadlock, the SC proposed a timeline: an officer would be appointed to bring the complete trial record to the Supreme Court for inspection by both sides within a week, after which charges could be framed and dates for arguments fixed.

While Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the State of Maharashtra, contended that the prosecution was not responsible for the delay, the court remained focused on the fundamental right to a speedy trial. The bench deferred the bail application by one month, granting Gadling the liberty to argue for release on merits if no substantial progress is made in the interim. This intervention aligns with recent judicial observations that prolonged incarceration under UAPA, without the prospect of a timely trial, may necessitate the granting of bail to protect the constitutional right to liberty.

Read More