E-Paper
30% of criminal cases against MPs, MLAs pending trial, Supreme Court told
Around a third of the criminal cases against elected representatives in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies have been pending for at least five years, said a report tabled in the Supreme Court.
Around a third of the criminal cases against elected representatives in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies have been pending for at least five years, said a report tabled in the Supreme Court which is hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) on fast-tracking criminal trials against sitting and former Members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies and Councils.
Presenting a compilation to the Court based on reports filed by 20 states and union territories, senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, who is assisting the court in the matter as amicus curiae (friend of the court) said that in these regions, a total of 3096 criminal cases are pending against MPs/MLAs (both sitting and former) out of which 962 have been pending for over five years.
He also separately presented the pending cases investigated/tried by central investigation agencies such as Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Enforcement Directorate and National Investigation Agency (NIA). According to his report, ED cases are pending against 51 MPs (and former MPs) and 71 MLAs and members of legislative councils (and former members). The ED report did not specify how many of these related to sitting members. CBI informed the court through a separate report that 121 cases are pending trial against MPs/MLAs (and former MPs/MLAs) of which 51 are MPs (14 sitting and 37 former; 5 of the members are deceased) and 112 MLAs (34 sitting and 78 former; including 9 deceased). NIA is only probing four cases of which two involve MPs/MLAs.
The only agency which claimed there were no cases involving MPs/MLAs was the Narcotics Bureau.
A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, and justices Hima Kohli and JB Pardiwala after taking note of the amicus report posted the matter for hearing next week. Hansaria told the Court: “The matter is serious as nearly 30% cases against MPs/MLAs are pending over five years.” This was the 17th report submitted by the amicus in a PIL filed by lawyer and Delhi BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay in 2016.
Hansaria suggested a slew of measures to speed up pending trials across states and other central investigation agencies by seeking orders from the Court. He insisted on a “no adjournment” rule except in rare and exceptional circumstances and said that if it is found that the accused is delaying the trial, the concerned special MP/MLA court should be asked to cancel the bail granted. He even requested the court to consider giving priority to trial of cases which are punishable with death or life, followed by cases involving offences punishable with seven years imprisonment or above and lastly, other cases. He further added a caveat that cases against sitting legislators should be heard on priority.
Compiling the information on pending criminal cases against MPs/MLAs received from 20 states and UTs as on November 12, Hansaria said that he was yet to get information from biglarge states such as Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand and Telangana.
Among the states/UTs which submitted details, the highest number of cases pending over five years was reported in Odisha (323 out of 454 cases) followed by Maharashtra (169 out of 482 cases). Delhi reported 93 cases of which 27 are pending for over 5 years. Maharashtra (482) reported the highest number of overall cases, followed by Odisha (454), Kerala (384), Madhya Pradesh (329) and Tamil Nadu (260).
The top court on October 10 directed states to furnish the information in order to understand the requirement for additional special courts to try MP/MLA cases and to designate more judges for hearing such cases. It also asked high courts to provide information on the number of judges allocated to conduct the trials, the case load per judge and the steps which have been taken to ensure the expeditious conclusion of the trials of these cases. Out of 25 high courts, only 16 responded to the top court’s order, Hansaria said.
Hansaria requested monitoring of cases where investigations are pending with ED and CBI by forming a , Monitoring Committee headed by a former Supreme Court judge or a former Chief Justice of a high court. The other members, he suggested, could be the ED’s director (or his nominee not below the rank of Additional Director), the CBI director (or his nominee not below the rank of Additional Director), the union home secretary (or his nominee not below the rank of joint secretary), and a judicial officer not below the rank of district judge to be nominated by the top court.
