3 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Dec 24, 2025 05:54 AM IST
The court also concluded that it did “not find any provision enlarging the scope of challenge” of an order framing charges under the NIA Act, “from supervisory jurisdiction to challenge on facts and law”.
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday held that an order framing charges by a special NIA court, is an interlocutory order and not a final order while dismissing a batch of appeals by 19 accused in various NIA cases, including sons of Hizbul Mujahideen chief, who are accused in a 2011 terror-funding case.
Interlocutory orders are deemed to be orders in the nature of being interim or temporary, which do not conclusively decide the rights or liabilities of parties. An order which substantially affects the right of an accused cannot be said to be an interlocutory order.
A division bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain dismissed a batch of appeals by 19 accused in NIA cases, which included Hizbul Mujahideen chief Syed Salahuddin’s sons Syed Ahmad Shakeel and Shahid Yousuf (whose appeals were pending before the HC since 2021), Kashmiri separatists Masarat Alam Bhat and Shabir Ahmed Shah, Kashmiri businessman Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, and 14 others, all challenging the special NIA court’s orders framing charges.
The bench held the appeals, which were filed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, are not maintainable.
The bench reasoned that an “order framing charge, as against final order is an interlocutory order, as it does not decide any proceeding finally and the term ‘intermediate order’ is a concept of revisional jurisdiction, which cannot be applied while interpreting the term ‘appeal’ both on facts and law.”
Relying on SC verdicts and the scope of the NIA Act, which calls for speedy investigation and trial, the bench held that for appeals under Section 21 of the Act, an order “has to be a final order, like a judgment or sentence which can be challenged both on facts and law and conclude proceeding finally”.
The court also concluded that it did “not find any provision enlarging the scope of challenge” of an order framing charges under the NIA Act, “from supervisory jurisdiction to challenge on facts and law”.
Story continues below this ad
“At the stage of framing of Charge, as settled by a catena of judgments, the Court is to summarily look into the evidence collected by the prosecution and to find if a Charge is made out. It is also obliged to see that there is no abuse of process of law or jurisdictional defects in the proceedings. However, the evidence is yet to be led by the parties before the Court and thus, at this stage, the Special Court is not expected to give any definite finding on facts and law, consequently an appeal on facts and law cannot be envisaged,” said the court.
Sohini Ghosh is a Senior Correspondent at The Indian Express. Previously based in Ahmedabad covering Gujarat, she recently moved to the New Delhi bureau, where she primarily covers legal developments at the Delhi High Court
Professional Profile
Background: An alumna of the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), she previously worked with ET NOW before joining The Indian Express.
Core Beats: Her reporting is currently centered on the Delhi High Court, with a focus on high-profile constitutional disputes, disputes over intellectual property, criminal and civil cases, issues of human rights and regulatory law (especially in the areas of technology and healthcare).
Earlier Specialty: In Gujarat, she was known for her rigorous coverage in the beats of crime, law and policy, and social justice issues, including the 2002 riot cases, 2008 serial bomb blast case, 2016 flogging of Dalits in Una, among others.
She has extensively covered health in the state, including being part of the team that revealed the segregation of wards at the state’s largest government hospital on lines of faith in April 2020.
With Ahmedabad being a UNESCO heritage city, she has widely covered urban development and heritage issues, including the redevelopment of the Sabarmati Ashram
Recent Notable Articles (Late 2025)
Her recent reporting from the Delhi High Court covers major political, constitutional, corporate, and public-interest legal battles:
High-Profile Case Coverage
She has extensively covered the various legal battles - including for compensation under the aegis of North East Delhi Riots Claims Commission - pertaining to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, as well as 1984 anti-Sikh riots.
She has also led coverage at the intersection of technology and governance, and its impact on the citizenry, from, and beyond courtrooms — such as the government’s stakeholder consultations for framing AI-Deepfake policy.
Signature Style
Sohini is recognized for her sustained reporting from courtrooms and beyond. She specialises in breaking down dense legal arguments to make legalese accessible for readers. Her transition from Gujarat to Delhi has seen her expand her coverage on regulatory, corporate and intellectual property law, while maintaining a strong commitment to human rights and lacuna in the criminal justice system.
X (Twitter): @thanda_ghosh ... Read More
