Expedite pending trials against MPs, MLAs: SC

The bench directed chief justices of all 25 high courts across the country to register cases on their own motion (suo motu) to monitor the early disposal of criminal cases pending against the members of Parliament and legislative assemblies

New Delhi The Supreme Court on Thursday issued a string of directives to expedite pending criminal trials against the members of legislative assemblies and Parliament, noting that these cases have a “direct bearing on our political democracy” and that there is a compelling need to make every effort to ensure that these cases are taken up on priority and decided quickly.

HT Image

“Confidence and trust of the constituency in their political representative, be it an MP or an MLA, is necessary for an interactive, efficient and effective functioning of a parliamentary democracy. However, such confidence is difficult to expect when figures loom large in our polity,” said the bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, highlighting that as many as 5,175 such cases were pending as of November 2022.

“Of these, cases that are pending for more than five years are as many as 2,116, which figure is more than 40% of such pendencies. This is a large number,” lamented the bench, also comprising justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra, adding that systemic and institutional factors, including the method of adversarial litigation, availability of judges, difference of practice and procedure among different states, are reasons for delay in disposal of trials against the lawmakers.

“Yet, at every stage of the practice and procedure that we adopt, there is scope for reform,” underlined the bench, as it held that no uniform directives can be issued setting down a specific timeline for disposal of criminal trials against MPs and MLAs but proceeded to lay down certain guidelines that it said will enable the “completion of investigation, smooth conduct of trial, removal of impediments and conclusion of the subject cases at the earliest”.

The bench directed chief justices of all 25 high courts across the country to register cases on their own motion (suo motu) to monitor the early disposal of criminal cases pending against the members of Parliament and legislative assemblies, adding these cases may be heard by the special bench presided by the chief justices or benched assigned by them.

“The high court may issue such orders and/or directions as are necessary for expeditious and effective disposal of the subject cases. The special bench may consider calling upon the advocate general or the public prosecutor to assist the court,” said the bench, adding the principal district and sessions judge may be asked to send periodical reports on status of such trials.

The court further directed that the designated trial courts shall give priority to criminal cases against MPs and MLAs punishable with death or life imprisonment and then to cases punishable with imprisonment for five years or more. Offences such as murder, rape of minor, kidnapping for ransom and mutiny can entail death penalty for convicts.

“The trial courts shall not adjourn the cases except for rare and compelling reasons. The learned chief justices may list cases in which orders of stay of trial have been passed before the Special Bench to ensure that appropriate orders, including vacation of stay orders are passed to ensure commencement and conclusion of trial,” the bench further directed.

Apart from ensuring sufficient infrastructural facilities for trial courts to take up such cases, the bench directed that high courts shall create an independent tab on their websites providing district-wise information about the details of the year of filing of such cases, their status and other relevant details.

“We make it clear that while monitoring the subject cases, the special bench may pass such orders or give such additional directions as are necessary for early disposal of the subject cases,” added the top court.

The court was hearing a petition filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay in 2016, seeking suitable directives for fast-tracking criminal trials against sitting and former members of Parliament and assemblies. Upadhyay, in his petition, has also pleaded for debarring convicted lawmakers from contesting polls for life. He has challenged the pertinent provision in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which provides that a legislator sentenced to a jail term for not less than two years shall remain disqualified from the date of such conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release. The court will hear this plea separately.

Senior counsel Vijay Hansaria, assisting the court as amicus curiae in Upadhyay’s plea, in his report in September underlined the need for expeditious disposal of trials pending against MLAs/MPs as there are 5,175 cases pending across various trial courts in the country. Of these, 2,116 cases, translating to over 40% of such cases, were stated to be pending for more than five years, with the largest cases being reported from Uttar Pradesh (1,377), followed by Bihar (546) and Maharashtra (482).

A report by an amicus is submitted to the court as his or her recommendation, based on which a court may ask for a response from the government on one or more concerns highlighted in it. The court exercises its discretion regarding accepting the report in full or partly, or seeking changes in the proposed suggestions.

By a judgment in a separate case in 2014, the top court had ordered that trials against elected lawmakers be completed within a year of charges being framed. A court frames charges once the charge sheet is submitted. After hearing the prosecution and the accused, it decides on the counts on which the accused is to be tried.

In its 2014 judgment, the apex court directed that trial courts would have to explain to the chief justices of their high courts if proceedings are not completed within a year of framing charges, ordering day-to-day hearings in such cases. The chief justice can extend the period of trial if satisfied with the reason given by the trial judge. The order came on a public interest litigation filed by an NGO, Public Interest Foundation, that wanted politicians facing criminal charges barred from elections.