P&H HC grants time to submit further progress & status regarding probe in pending cases against MPs/ MLAs; says intention of States not lacking but efforts supporting intention missing

Read Order: Court on its Own Motion v. State of Punjab and Others 

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, January 25,  2022: While taking on record the report submitted by the States of Punjab and Haryana on the status of cases pending against MPs and MLAs, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that the assurances which were given before the Court by the Counsels representing the States of Punjab and Haryana during the last, were not fulfilled in toto.

The Division Bench of Justices Augustine George Masih and Sandeep Moudgil also said, “We would not say that the intention on the part of the State of Punjab or Haryana is lacking but the efforts and the actions supporting the said intention appear to be missing or at least lagging. The reports as have been submitted indicate movement in the right direction but the pace thereof is moving cannot be, by any stretch of imagination, said to be satisfactory.”

This Writ Petition was first entertained by the High Court, by its order dated February 15, 2021, passed in pursuance of the Supreme court’s order in Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay Vs. Union of India & Anr., Writ Petition (Civil) No., 699 of 2016,  wherein the Top Court directed the High Courts to register a Suo Moto case with the title “In Re: Special Courts for MPs/MLAs” to monitor the progress of cases pending against MPs/ MLAs in the State and ensure compliance of directions of the Top Court. 

On the previous hearing which took place on November 11, 2021, the Division Bench perused the reports submitted by the CBI, and the States of Haryana and Punjab apprising the Court of the status of investigation in such cases. The State Counsels sought more time for completion of the investigation and for submission of a comprehensive status report. 

Perusing the report so submitted, the Bench expressed its dissatisfaction with the pace of the investigation and said that the reports as was submitted indicated movement in the right direction but the pace thereof could not, by any stretch of the imagination be called satisfactory. 

Seeing the Court’s response, the State Counsels prayed for some more time to submit the further progress and the status in the pending cases for investigation. 

The prayer was granted by the Court.