InWrit Petition (C) No. 699 of 2016 -SC- Supreme Court directs High Courts to fast-track criminal trials against MPs & MLAs
Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha & Justice Manoj Misra [09-11-2023]

Read Order: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay V. Union of India &Anr

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, November 13, 2023: The Supreme Court has directed the Chief Justices of all High Courts to register a suo motu case titled ‘In Re: designated courts for MPs/MLAs’ to monitor the early disposal of criminal cases pending against Members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies (MLAs).

The present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, pertained to public interest and sought two distinct reliefs. The first prayer focused on the expeditious disposal of criminal cases against elected members of the Parliament and Legislative Assemblies. The second prayer concerned the constitutional validity of Section 8 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.

A three-judge bench of Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra noted that the need for expeditious disposal of criminal cases against elected members of the Parliament and Legislative Assemblies had been examined in previous cases. In the Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India [LQ/SC/2014/279], the court had directed that in cases where charges were framed against sitting MPs and MLAs for offenses specified in Sections 8(1), 8(2), and 8(3) of the Representation of Peoples Act, the trial should be concluded as quickly as possible, and in no case later than one year from the date of framing of charges. The trial was to be conducted on a day-to-day basis, and if the court could not conclude the trial within one year due to extraordinary circumstances, it was to submit a report to the Chief Justice of the respective High Court, explaining the special reasons for the delay.

The bench further acknowledged that multiple factors influenced the early disposal of criminal cases against MPs and MLAs, and these factors varied from State to State.

The bench also remarked, “The practice and procedure prevalent in every court is distinct and is sometimes deep-rooted. There are many factors, which may be historical, cultural, regional or linguistic, that influence the work ethic in a court. This is where the role of the Bar becomes important, and therefore, their participation becomes crucial.”

The bench recognized the dissimilarity of situations across the country, makes it challenging to establish a uniform or standard guideline for trial courts nationwide. After reviewing the affidavits filed by the High Courts, the bench noted that the High Courts were already dealing with these issues on both the judicial and administrative fronts. Given that High Courts had the power of superintendence over the district judiciary under Article 227, the Court left it to the discretion of the High Courts to evolve methods or apply measures they deem expedient for effective monitoring of the subject cases.

Consequently, the Court directed the Chief Justices of the High Courts to register a suo-motu case, to monitor the early disposal of criminal cases pending against Members of Parliamentand Legislative Assemblies (MLAs). It was directed that a Special Bench, presided over by the Chief Justice or a designated bench, will hear the suo-motu case at regular intervals.

The designated courts were instructed to give priority to criminal cases against MPs and MLAs, especially those punishable with death or life imprisonment, followed by cases punishable with imprisonment for five years or more. The Trial Courts were directed not to adjourn cases except for rare and compelling reasons. The High Courts were required to create an independent tab on their website providing district-wise information about the details of the year of filing, the number of pending cases, and the stage of proceedings. The Special Bench may pass orders or give additional directions as necessary for the early disposal of these cases.

The Court also directed that the case will now be listed for further hearing on the constitutional validity of Section 8 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.