SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Manoj Misra, JJ.
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay - Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Anr. – Respondents
Writ Petition (C) no. 699 of 2016
Decided On : 09-11-2023
Constitution of India – Article 32 – Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 – Section 8 – Public Interest Litigation – Expeditious disposal of criminal cases against elected members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies – Constitutional validity of Section 8 of Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 – These cases have a direct bearing on our political democracy – There is a compelling need to make every effort to ensure that these cases are taken up on priority and decided expeditiously – Confidence and trust of constituency in their political representative, be it an MP or an MLA, is necessary for an interactive, efficient and effective functioning of a parliamentary democracy – There are no two views about compelling need to take up and dispose of subject cases expeditiously – However, problem seems systemic, perhaps institutional, and takes within its sweep many factors including method of adversarial litigation that we have adopted – 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 work ethic in a court – This is where role of Bar becomes important and their participation becomes crucial – It is appropriate to leave it to High Courts to evolve such method or apply such measure that they deem expedient for an effective monitoring of subject cases – Chief Justices of High Courts shall register a suo-motu case with title, “In Re: designated courts for MPs/MLAs” to monitor early disposal of criminal cases pending against members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies – Suo-motu case may be heard by Special Bench presided by Chief Justice or a Bench assigned by them – Directions issued. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 19 and 20)
Facts of the case:
Instant Writ Petition under Article 32 of Constitution of India, in nature of Public Interest, seeks two distinct reliefs. First prayer relates to expeditious disposal of criminal cases against elected members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies. Second prayer relates to constitutional validity of Section 8 of Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.
Findings of Court:
Once we recognize the inextricable connection and interdependence of the Bar and the Bench, the need to focus and address these issues comes to light. At this stage, we are merely attempting to identify factors that must be taken into account while making an accurate assessment for an effective and expeditious disposal of the subject cases.
Result : Writ Petition disposed of with directions.
JUDGMENT :
Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI.
1. This Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, in the nature of Public Interest, seeks two distinct reliefs. The first prayer relates to expeditious disposal of criminal cases against elected members of the Parliament and Legislative Assemblies1[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘subject cases’]. The second prayer relates to the constitutional validity of Section 8 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. By this order, we dispose of this Writ Petition as regards the first prayer after formulating certain guidelines for expeditious disposal of the subject cases. We have also requested the learned Chief Justices of the respective High Courts to constitute a Special Bench to review and monitor the progress of these cases from time to time.
2. A short reference to the orders passed by this Court from time to time, affidavits of the State Governments, and reports of the High Courts as analyzed by the Amicus in his written submissions are necessary before articulating the guidelines and disposing of the writ petition with appropriate directions. These proceedings commenced with notices being issued to the Union of India, State Governments and High Courts. At a later stage, this Court also appointed Shri Vijay Hansaria, Ld. Senior Advocate as Amicus Curiae. We place on record appreciation for his invaluable contribution and assistance.
3. In fact, this is not the first case in which the need for an expeditious disposal of criminal cases against elected members of the Parliament and Legislative Assemblies is examined. In Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India, (2015) 11 SCC 433, this court held:
“10. We, accordingly, direct that in relation to sitting MPs and MLAs who have charges framed against them for the offences which are specified in Sections 8(1), 8(2) and 8(3) of the RP Act, the trial shall be concluded as speedily and expeditiously as may be possible and in no case later than one year from the date of the framing of charge(s). In such cases, as far as possible, the trial shall be conducted on a day-to-day basis. If for some extraordinary circumstances the court concerned is not being able to conclude the trial within one year from the date of framing of charge(s), such court would submit the report to the Chief Justice of the respective High Court indicating special reasons for not adhering to the above timelimit and delay in conclusion of the trial. In such situation, the Chief Justice may issue appropriate directions to the court concerned extending the time for conclusion of the trial.”
4. At an early stage, this Court recorded the statement of the Ld. Additional Solicitor General that these proceedings are not adversarial in nature and that the Union would not be averse to setting up special courts for expeditious trial and disposal of the subject cases. By order dated 01.11.2017, this Court called upon the Union, States and the High Courts to respond to the idea of setting up special courts and the financial implications involved in its implementation.
5. After gathering the necessary information, the Union filed an affidavit as is evident from the order dated 14.12.2017, contemplating setting up twelve special courts exercising jurisdiction over multiple states. By the same order, the High Courts were called upon to identify and transfer the subject cases to the special courts that were to be established. The Union was also directed to bear the estimated expenditure of about Rs. 7.80 crores for running these twelve special courts.
6. However, as the above-referred decision had policy and financial implications, after much deliberation, this Court reconsidered the matter and accepted the suggestion of the Amicus. That is, instead of setting up special courts, a specified court in each district, both at the sessions and magistrate level, be identified a
Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India, (2015) 11 SCC 433
Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd vs. CBI, 2018 (16) SCC 299
Mahender Chawla vs Union of India, 2018 (16) SCC 299
Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited v. CBI, (2018) 16 SCC 299
Mahender Chawla v. Union of India, (2019) 14 SCC 615, [Para
All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 673, [Para
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of jurisdiction in trying cases and the constitutional mandate for a speedy trial.
No person shall be deprived of his life or his personal liberty except according to procedure established by law - declares Article 21 of Constitution. Life and liberty, words employed in shaping Art....
Special Courts for MPs/MLAs can try cases against former and sitting legislators irrespective of their status at the time of the alleged offence.
THE SPECIAL COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO TRY OFFENCES COMMITTED BY BOTH SITTING AND FORMER MPS AND MLAS PROVIDED AS ON THE DATE OF COMMISSION OF OFFENCE, THE ACCUSED WAS EITHER A MP OR A MLA.
The need for expeditious disposal of pending cases against MPs/MLAs and the infringement to the right to fair and expeditious investigation and trial under Article 21 of the Constitution due to undue....
The Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act cannot take direct cognizance of offences under the IPC without prior committal by a Magistrate, aligning with the hierarchy of c....
The Special Judge established under the Act has the power to treat the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint, contrary to the previous decision in Soni Devi case.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.