Cases Against Lawmakers: SC for Special Bench

The Asian Age With Agency Inputs

India, All India

The top court directed that criminal cases against members of Parliament, Legislative Assemblies and Legislative Councils be given priority

Supreme Court (PTI)

NEW DELHI: In an attempt to fast-track trials in more than 5,000 criminal cases against lawmakers, the Supreme Court on Thursday directed high courts to set up a special bench to monitor cases for their speedy disposal. It also asked special courts not to adjourn proceedings in such matters except “for rare and compelling reasons”.

Issuing a set of directions to high courts, district judges and special courts designated to hear matters related to lawmakers, the top court directed that criminal cases against members of Parliament, Legislative Assemblies and Legislative Councils be given priority.

“The learned Chief Justice of the high court shall register a suo motu case titled 'In re designated courts for MPs/MLAs' to monitor early disposal of criminal cases pending against the members of Parliament and the Legislative Assemblies,” said one of the directions passed by the bench of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.

The bench said that multiple local factors made it difficult for the top court to “frame uniform or standard guidelines for trial courts across the length and breadth of this country” and it left the issue of ensuring speedy trial to the high courts as they have the power of superintendence over the trial courts.

The top court said: “Under Article 227 of the Constitution, the high courts are entrusted with the power of superintendence over the subordinate judiciary. We deem it appropriate to leave it to the high courts to evolve such a method or apply such measures that they deem expedient for an effective monitoring of the subject cases.”

It said that the suo motu case may be heard by a special bench presided over by the Chief Justice of the high court or judges assigned by him to the special bench that may list matters at regular intervals as felt necessary.

“The high court may issue such orders in all directions as unnecessary for expeditious and effective disposal. The special bench may consider calling upon the advocate-general or the public prosecutor to assist the court,” the bench directed.

The apex court said that a high court may ask the principal district and sessions judge to bear the responsibility of allocating the subject cases to such court or courts as is considered appropriate and effective.

“The high court may call upon the principal district and sessions judge to send reports at such intervals as it is considered expedient. The designated court shall give priority, one: to criminal cases against MPs and MLAs punishable with death or life imprisonment, then to the cases punishable with imprisonment for five years or more,” it said, adding that the special courts shall not adjourn the cases except "for rare and compelling reasons”.

The Chief Justice of a high court 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 the stay orders, are passed to ensure the commencement and conclusion of trial, the judgement said.

“The principal district and sessions judge shall ensure sufficient infrastructure facilities for the designated courts and also enable them to adopt such technology as is expedient for effective and efficient functioning,” it said.

The bench said: “The high court shall create an independent tab on the website providing district-wise information about the details of the filing year, the number of subject cases pending and the stage of proceedings. While monitoring the subject cases, the special bench may pass such orders or directions as are necessary for expeditious disposal, clarified the court.”

Disposing of one of the aspects of the PIL relating to ensuring speedy trial of criminal cases against politicians, the bench kept the plea, filed by Ashwini Upadhyay through lawyer Ashwani Dubey, pending to deal with other aspects related to decriminalisation of polity in the country. It hailed Mr Upadhyay, amicus curiae and senior lawyer Vijay Hansaria and advocate Sneha Kalita for rendering valuable assistance in the hearing of the case.

Besides seeking early disposal of criminal cases against politicians, the petition has sought a life-term ban on politicians upon conviction in criminal cases and the setting up of special courts for this purpose in the country.

Mr Upadhyay has challenged the provisions of the Representation of Peoples Act, which restrict the term of disqualification to the period of the sentence plus six years after the release.

As per one of the latest reports of the amicus curiae of November 14, last year there were 5,175 cases against politicians and 2,116 criminal cases pending for more than five years. The numbers are rising every day.

Mr Hansaria had said that there were 4,112 cases pending against lawmakers seven years ago and now the number has gone up to 5,175.

According to the report, the total number of pending cases against lawmakers in December 2021 was 4,984.