SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SC) 1120

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

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Gopal Saankaranarayan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, AOR Mr. Rishabh Shukla, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Tanya Srivastava, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv. Ms. V Mohana, Sr. Adv. Mr. K Parmeshwar, Adv. Mr. Mohd Akhil, Adv. Mrs. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, AOR Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Mr. Sahil Tagotra, AOR Mr. Sidhant Kumar, Adv. Ms. Manyaa Chandok, Adv. Ms. Abhivyakti Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Shiv Ram Sharma, AOR Mr. P.N. Ravindran, Sr. Adv. Mr. T. G. Narayanan Nair, AOR Ms. Swathi H. Prasad, Adv. Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Nishant Rao, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Srisatya Mohanty, Adv. Ms. Anju Thomas, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Chakravarty, Adv. Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Adv. Mr. Bhanu Mishra, Adv. Ms. Muskan Surana, Adv. Ms. Anvita Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Lihzu Shiney Konyak, Adv. Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Ms. Limayinla Jamir, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv. Mr. Anupam Raina, AOR Mr. Sunando Raha, Adv. Mr. Nishant Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ajay Pal, AOR Mr. Kumar Mihir, AOR Ms. G. Indira, AOR Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, AOR Mr. Anandh Kannan N., AOR Mr. Rushab Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv. Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv. Ms. Riddhima J Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Japnish Singh Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Aashish Chojar, Adv. Ms. Alka Chojar, Adv. Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Kabir Shankar Bose, Adv. Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Kurup, AOR Ms. Kirti Dadheech, Adv. Ms. Gauri Goburdhun, Adv. Ms. Aparna Arun, Adv. Mr. Akhil Hasija, Adv. Mr. Shivansh Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Atrey, AOR Mr. Ravindra Lokhande, Adv. Ms. Vidyottma Jha, Adv. Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, AOR Mr. Anand Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Devvrat Singh, Adv. Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, AOR Intervenor-in-person Mr. Aravindh S., AOR Mr. S.C. Verma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR Mr. Yash Gupta, Adv. Mr. Anup Rattan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Baldev Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Tavleen Singh, Adv. Ms. Vallabhi Shukla, Adv. Mr. Joginder Mann, Adv. Mr. Divyansh Thakur, Adv. Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Adv. Ms. Niharika, Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR M/S. Gorkela Law Office, AOR Mr. Abhimanue Shrestha, AOR Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mrs. Anu K Joy, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mr. Abraham Mathew, Adv. Mr. Siddhesh Shirish Kotwal, AOR Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Manya Hasija, Adv. Mr. Tejasvi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Pawan Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. T. Illayarasu, Adv. Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Priyanshu Malik, Adv. Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, AOR Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Sagar, AOR Mr. Vaibhav Jain, Adv. Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Raj, Adv. Mr. Sidharth Sarthi, Adv. Mrs. Divya Mishra, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv. Mr. Gunjesh Ranjan, Adv. Ms. Priyadarshni Priya, Adv. Mr. Gautam Narayan, AOR Ms. Asmita Singh, Adv. Ms. Enakshi Mukhopadhyay Siddhanta, AOR Mr. Sovan Siddhanta, Adv. Mr. Anil Shrivastav, AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Manendra Pal Gupta, Adv. Mr. Md.apzal Ansari, Adv. Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR Mr. Krishnam Mishra, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Ashiwan Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, AOR Mr. Santosh Krishnan, AOR Ms. Deepshikha Sansanwal, Adv. Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, AOR Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv. Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, AOR Mr. Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, AOR Mr. Venkita Subramoniam T.R, Adv. Mr. Likhi Chand Bonsle, Adv. Ms. Komal Mundhra, Adv. Ms. Anagha N. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co, AOR Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, A.A.G. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Ms. Devyani Gupta, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Mr. C Kranthi Kumar, Adv. Mr. Naman Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Anand, Adv. Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR Mr. Karan Bharihoke, AOR Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR Ms. K. V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, AOR Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. M.k. Maroria, Sr. Adv. Mr. K.v.sreemuthin, Adv. Ms. Priyadarshini Priya, Adv. Mr. Saransh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Jain, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, AOR Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Adv. Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Adv. Mr. Mohit Prasad, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, AOR Mr. Satish Pandey, AOR Mr. Akbar Ali, Adv. Mr. Manmohan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Jay Jaimini Pandey, Adv. Ms. Sadiya Shakeel, Adv. Mrs. Lalita Gupta, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Harendra Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. Shah Syed Samadur Rahman, Adv. Mr. Abdul Qadir, Adv. Mr. Umang Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Prabhoo Dayal Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Bankura, Adv. Dr. Nafis A.siddiqui, Adv. Mr. Malak Manish Bhatt, AOR Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, AOR Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Adv. Mr. Karan Bishnoi, Adv. Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv. Ms. Kshitij Singh, Adv. Mr. Sohhom Sau, Adv. Ms. Uttara Babbar, AOR Ms. Sampriti Baksi, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Akshay Subhash Jagtap, Adv. Mr. Swapnil Anil Walde, Adv. Mr. Kabir Dixit, AOR Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Ms. Vani Vandana Chhetri, Adv. Ms. Nishi Sangtani, Adv. Mr. Naman Jain, Adv. Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Anandh Kannan N., AOR M/S. Plr Chambers And Co., AOR Ms. Jesal Wahi, AOR Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Adv. Mrs. Shashi Pathak, Adv. Ms. Aswathi M.k., AOR Mr. Shovan Mishra, AOR Mr. B.K. Satija, A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Expeditious disposal of criminal cases against elected members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies – 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 is necessary for an interactive, efficient and effective functioning of a parliamentary democracy.

Headnote:

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


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top