Fix a time-frame to conclude trials of criminal cases pending against sitting and former law makers: Amicus Curiae Suggests SC
(Judicial Quest News Network)
A report has been submitted in Supreme Court by Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria stating that there is no clarity as to the courts which are trying offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The report informed the Supreme Court that 189 cases under special statutes are pending against legislators from across the country.
The Report filed by the Amicus Curiae through Advocate Sneha Kalita is pursuant to the directions issued by Supreme Court in the PIL filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeking the speedy disposal of criminal cases against former and present MPs and MLAs.
The Centre has expressed that it would welcome an order aimed at quickening the process of trials pending against MPs and MLAs.
Hanssaria, who is Amicus Curiae in the case concerning Special Courts to try cases against Members of parliament and Legislative Assemblies (MPs and MLAs), also told the Supreme Court that there is “no uniformity as to the setting up of Special Courts for MPs/MLAs throughout the country.”
Supreme Court directed the High Courts to submit reports on pending cases against MPs and MLAs under special laws.
Earlier the court had been informed that the trial as pending against law makers in 4,442 cases across the country. However Mr. Hansaria had informed the court that barring 6 High Courts, details of cases pending against legislators under Special Statutes had not been furnished to him.
The Court had thereafter, on September 10, directed all High Courts to furnish additional details about cases pending under special legislation within 2days.
There is also no clarity as to the courts which are trying offences under
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. For example, in the State of
Madhya Pradesh (where 21 cases are pending) and in Karnataka
(Where 20 cases are pending) all these cases are pending before
Special Judge (MP/ MLA) at Bhopal and Bengaluru respectively. In State of Telangana, these cases are before Special Judge, CBI at Hyderabad. In Delhi, cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered both by Delhi Police and by CBI are before the Special Court MP/MLA. Similar is the situation with regard to offences punishable under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
The Amicus’s reoport further states that “Analysis of district wise cases in most of the States where Special Courts have not been constituted number of pending cases in each district is in the range of 1 to 30 cases. However, in the district of Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala) 100 cases are pending at Magistrate level, in Mumbai Special Court 35 cases are pending, in Allahabad Special Court 256 cases, in Lucknow 41 cases and Puducherry 35 cases. A District-wise breakup of pending cases in all the States is filed herewith as”
The report further elaborately states that trial in most of the states has been held up due to pandemic situation. Witnesses have not been examined and charges have not been framed in the absence of physical presence of the accused.
After carefully examining the reports received from various High Courts, the supplementary submissions are made and SC informed that
Special Courts in every district for trial of all criminals cases against MPs/MLAs
Each High Court may be directed to assign/allocate criminal cases
Involving former and sitting legislators to one judicial officer in each district both for Sessions Courts and Magisterial Courts as Special
Court MP/MLA. The High Courts may be directed to prepare a blue
Print for expeditious disposal of the cases not later than 1 year for
Conclusion of trial. Hon’ble Chief Justice of each High Court may be
Requested to personally look into the matter and submit an action
Plan within such time as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
Proper.
Further it is averted that the “The High Court reports will also include mechanism for expeditious trial of criminal cases against MPs/ MLAs under special statutes including Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Prevention of MoneyLaundering Act, 2002, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012, Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Companies Act, 2013, Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 etc.
A three judge bench comprising of Justices NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Harishikesh Roy, heard tha matter the Amicus had informed the court that data shows there is no uniformity with regard to setting up of special courts for MPs and MLAs Across the country.
The report suggested that The High Courts would designate a judicial officer for all such cases, who shall try these cases on priority basis. The judicial officer can be allotted other work depending on the workload, number and nature of criminal cases against MPs/ MLAs. The judicial officer so designated shall have continuity of tenure for a minimum period of two years
The report states that the order of importance od cases in Special Courts would be
1. Offences punishable with death/ life imprisonment;
2. Offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002;
3. Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Offences under Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012;
4. Offences punishable with imprisonment for 7 years or more
5. Other offences.
The Amicus has further made a case for giving high priority to cases involving sitting legislators over those against former legislators.
Moreover no adjournments should be granted except in rare and exceptional circumstances on a written application stating the ground of adjournment.
Report also suggested tha in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. CBI, be followed to ensure that trial courts proceed with the trial notwithstanding any stay granted by the High Court.
“If stay is granted, it should not normally be unconditional or
Of indefinite duration. Appropriate conditions may be
Imposed so that the party in whose favour stay is granted is
Accountable if court finally finds no merit in the matter and
The other side suffers loss and injustice. To give effect to the
Legislative policy and the mandate of Article 21 for speedy
Justice in criminal cases, if stay is granted, matter should be
Taken on day-to-day basis and concluded within two-three
Months. Where the matter remains pending for longer
Period, the order of stay will stand vacated on expiry of six
Months, unless extension is granted by a speaking order
Showing extraordinary situation where continuing stay was
To be preferred to the final disposal of trial by the trial Court.
This timeline is being fixed in view of the fact that such trials
Are expected to be concluded normally in one to two years.”
“In the alternative, Registrar Generals may be directed to place
the matters involving MPs and MLAs before Hon’ble Chief Justice
for appropriate orders for urgent listing of such cases.”
“Hon’ble Chief Justice of every High Court may be requested to
list all pending against cases involving MPs and MLAs within 2
weeks before appropriate Bench; and upon being so listed, the
cases will be decided by the appropriate Bench expeditiously.
No adjournment shall be granted except on a written application
disclosing the ground and for reasons to be recorded.”
The report has also suggested that [11:16 pm, 16/09/2020] Syed Ali Taher Abedi: ach District will have a Nodal Prosecution Officer, who shall be an
officer not below the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police.
[11:16 pm, 16/09/2020] Syed Ali Taher Abedi: The Nodal Prosecution Officer shall be responsible to ensure production of accused persons before the respective courts and the execution of NBWs issued by the courts. The said officer shall also be responsible for service of summons to the witnesses, their appearance and deposition in the courts. Any lapse on the part of the Nodal Prosecution Officer will make him/ her liable to disciplinary proceedings apart from initiation of contempt of court proceedings.
[Read Report]
