The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated 8 December 2025 in CBI v. Dayamoy Mahato, emphasised the obligation of trial courts to actively assist accused persons in discharging the reverse burden of proof under Section 43-E of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh held that the statutory presumption against the accused does not diminish the court's constitutional responsibility to ensure a fair trial under Article 21.
Background
Section 43-E of the UAPA creates a statutory presumption against the accused in cases involving offences under the Act. Once the prosecution establishes certain foundational facts — such as the recovery of arms, explosives, or other incriminating material — the burden shifts to the accused to prove innocence. This reverse burden provision is among the most stringent in Indian criminal law and has been the subject of sustained constitutional scrutiny.
The case before the Court arose from a prosecution under the UAPA where the accused faced difficulties in mounting an effective defence given the presumption operating against him. The question that reached the Supreme Court concerned the extent to which the trial court is obligated to facilitate the accused's ability to rebut the statutory presumption, particularly where the accused may lack resources or access to evidence held by the prosecution.
Key Holdings
The Court laid down the following principles:
Judicial duty to aid the accused: Trial courts presiding over UAPA cases bear an affirmative obligation to ensure that the accused has a meaningful opportunity to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 43-E. This includes ensuring access to prosecution materials, adequate time for preparation, and competent legal representation.
Reverse burden does not negate fair trial: The statutory presumption under Section 43-E operates within the overarching constitutional guarantee of a fair trial under Article 21. The presumption cannot be applied in a manner that renders the accused's right to defend effectively illusory.
Court's active role: The Bench observed that in cases involving reverse burden provisions, the trial court must move beyond a passive adjudicatory role and take proactive steps to ensure procedural fairness, particularly where the accused is unrepresented or under-represented.
Implications for Practitioners
This judgment provides significant ammunition for defence counsel in UAPA prosecutions. The Court's articulation of an affirmative judicial duty to aid the accused in meeting the reverse burden shifts the practical dynamics of UAPA trials. Defence lawyers can now seek specific procedural directions from trial courts — including disclosure of prosecution evidence, appointment of competent legal aid counsel, and adequate adjournments for preparation — grounded in the Supreme Court's recognition that these are constitutional requirements, not judicial discretion.
For prosecutors, the judgment serves as a reminder that securing convictions under the UAPA requires more than reliance on the statutory presumption. The prosecution must be prepared for a more interventionist trial court that actively facilitates the accused's defence.
Trial courts will need to develop protocols for UAPA proceedings that demonstrate compliance with this judgment, particularly regarding evidence disclosure and legal representation standards.