SC tells CBI, ED not to delay investigations in cases against MLAs, MPs

The bench, which also comprised justices Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Surya Kant, was hearing a public interest litigation filed by Bharatiya Janata Party leader and advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who has raised the issue of fast-tracking criminal trial against lawmakers and constitution of special courts.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) not to keep the sword of investigation hanging over MPs and MLAs indefinitely, and to conclude such cases one way or the other.

In 122 cases registered by ED under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), investigations were pending in 76 cases.

“There is a case pending investigation since 2010 by ED...another case by CBI since 2013. The charge sheet is yet to be filed. Why should an investigation remain pending for so long? Don’t keep the sword hanging over them...don’t give an impression that the investigation is still on. Either file a charge sheet or close the case,” a bench, led by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, told solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who appeared for CBI and ED.

The bench, which also comprised justices Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Surya Kant, was hearing a public interest litigation filed by Bharatiya Janata Party leader and advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who has raised the issue of fast-tracking criminal trial against lawmakers and constitution of special courts.

After going through the status report submitted by CBI and a note shared by amicus curiae (to assist the court) and senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, the bench underscored that out of 121 cases probed by CBI against sitting and former MPs and MLAs, investigations were not over in 37 of them.

Similarly, in 122 cases registered by ED under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), investigations were pending in 76 cases.

“We want an explanation of the delay in investigations by the CBI and ED... We have a lot of time but we don’t know if investigating agencies also have the time to analyse why these cases have been pending for so long,” commented the bench.

It observed that the court does not want to demoralise CBI or ED but the delay in completion of the probe required a proper explanation and swift action.

About the cases being probed by ED, the bench told Mehta: “Your report is very inconclusive. You have not given any reason for not filing a charge sheet for 10 years in some of the cases. You attach properties but you do not file charge sheets. No purpose will be served only by attaching properties... We are not here to create hindrances in the probe but the cases have to be decided either way. You have to conclude them.”

The court also asked the S-G to have an action plan to evaluate the manpower and other resources required by CBI and ED. “Just like us (courts), investigating agencies are also suffering from lack of infrastructure, manpower and other resources,” observed the bench.

At this, Mehta said that he would have a joint meeting of directors of both the agencies to figure out the shortcomings and resolve the issues relating to manpower.

The S-G also requested the bench to issue directives on expediting the trials against the lawmakers by fixing a timeline of six months for completion of investigations and a reasonable time frame for conclusion of trials.

“Where are the judges? There are 1000 cases pending in one trial court. How do you expect us to expedite trials? We wanted the Government of India to create special courts separately and provide infrastructure but it looks like you are not in a position to do it... We are all in the hands of the S-G. As and when he can provide us infrastructure, we can hear the cases on an urgent basis,” retorted the court.

Hansaria also urged the bench to pass certain directives for speeding up the cases of legislators before the trial courts but the bench was of the view that no generic order can be issued to hear one category of cases out of turn. “You have to be practical. There is a shortage of judges. They have to hear several other cases too. Many other cases are also priority matters,” it said.

The amicus further raised the issue of withdrawal of cases by several state governments including the Uttar Pradesh government that has withdrawn 77 cases against political leader Sadhvi Prachi and three sitting MLAs – Sangeet Som, Suresh Rana and Kapil Dev — for making inflammatory statements during the 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots.

The bench said that it has already issued a direction earlier this month that no criminal case against MPs or MLAs can be withdrawn without an approval of the high court of the concerned state.

“We are not against withdrawing cases but they cannot be withdrawn just by using the term ‘malicious prosecution’. But sitting in Delhi, we cannot examine all the cases states want to withdraw. Let the states go to the high courts and satisfy the high courts about withdrawal,” said the court, adding it will soon issue further directions in the case.