Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(SC) 1011

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, SURYA KANT, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No.699 of 2016
Decided On : 16-09-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Mr. Gopal Shankar Narayan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, Adv., Mr. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, AOR, Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR, Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, AOR, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR, Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG, Mr. Aman Lekhi, ASG (N.P.), Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv., Ms. Neela Gokhale, Adv., Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv., Mr. R.R. Rajesh, Adv., Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, Adv., Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Adv., Mr. Mohit D. Ram, AOR, Mr. Shiv Ram Sharma, AOR, Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR, Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR, Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, AOR, Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Adv., Mr. Manoj Gorkela, Adv., Ms. K. Vaijayanthi, Adv., Ms. Manisha Chava, Adv., For M/s. Gorkela Law Office, AOR, Mr. Anandh Kannan N., AOR, Mr. Anil Shrivastav, AOR, Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, AOR, Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Adv.(AC), Ms. Sneha Kalita, AOR, Mr. Abhinis Pandey, Adv., Mr. Abhinav Hansaria, Adv., Ms. Bristi Mahanta, Adv., Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, AOR, Mr. G. N. Reddy, AOR, M/s. K J John And Co, AOR, Mr. P.N. Ravindran, Sr. Adv., Mr. T. G. Narayanan Nair, AOR, Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR, Mr. Rati Tandon, Adv., Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Adv., Ms. Liz Matthew, Adv., Mr. Vishal Prasad, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Manchanda, Adv., Mr. Sayandeep Pahari, Adv., For M/s. PLR Chambers & Co., AOR, Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR, Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR, Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv., M/s. Parekh & Co., AOR, Dr. Rajesh Pandey, Adv., Ms. Aswathi M.k., AOR, Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR, Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR, Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv., Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv., Ms. G. Indira, AOR, Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR, Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR, Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, AOR, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Adv., Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv., Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Adv., Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Adv., Ms. Geetanjali, Adv., For M/s. Arputham Aruna And Co, AOR, Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR, Mr. Kabir Shankar Bose, Adv., Mr. Rahul Raj Mishra, Adv., Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, AOR, Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Adv., Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Adv., Mr. Gaurav Pachnanda, Sr. Adv., Ms. Avni Sharma, Adv., Mr. Anupam Raina, AOR, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR, Mr. Sharan Thakur, Adv., Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR, Mr. Siddhartha Thakur, Adv., Mr. V. G. Pragasam, AOR, Mr. S. Prabu Rama Subramanian, Adv., Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR, Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, AOR, Mr. Karan Bharihoke, AOR, Ms. Shashi Juneja, Adv., Mr. Satish Pandey, AOR, Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, AOR, Mr. Kabir Dixit, AOR, Mr. Apoorv Kurup, AOR, Mr. Raghvendra Singh, AG, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, AOR, Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, Adv., Mr. Anand Kumar Dubey, Adv., Mr. Narendra Kumar, AOR, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR, Mr. Annam D. N. Rao, AOR, Mr. Venkatesh Rao, Adv., Mr. Rahul Mishra, Adv., Ms. Rachana Srivastava, AOR, Mr. Aviral Saxena, Adv., Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR, Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Pravar Veer Misra, Adv., Ms. Uttara Babbar, AOR, Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Adv., Mr. Manan Bansal, Adv., Mr. Anil Grover, Sr. AAG, Haryana, Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, Adv., Ms. Noopur Singhal, Adv., Mr. Satish Kumar, Adv., Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR, Intervenorinperson, Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, Adv., Mr. Sachin Patil, Adv., Mr. Rahul Chitnis Adv., Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv., Mr. Pratap Venugupal, Adv., Mr. Akhil Abraham Roy, Adv., Mr. M. Yogeshkanna, AOR, Mr. Raja Rajeshwaran S., Adv., Mr. Mahfooz A. Nazki, AOR, Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv., Mr. Amitabh Sinha, Adv., Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Adv., Ms. Sanjana Nangia, Adv., Ms. Abhilasha Bharti, Adv., Mr. Siddhesh Kotwal, Adv., Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv., Ms. Astha Sharma, Adv., Mr. Jishnu M.L., Adv., Ms. Priyanka Prakash, Adv., Ms. Beena Prakash, Adv., Mr. G. Prakash, AOR.

The main legal principle established is the need for expeditious disposal of criminal cases against legislators, including setting up special courts, rationalizing the number of special courts, and expediting trials despite stays granted by high courts.

Headnote:
DELAYED INQUIRIES - Criminal Cases Against Legislators - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Excise Act, 1944, Customs Act, 1962, Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, Companies Act, 2013 - The court discussed the delayed inquiries and trials against legislators under various enactments, focusing on the backlog of cases, insufficiency of special courts, lack of public prosecutors, and delays in investigations and prosecutions. The court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of cases and suggested measures such as setting up special courts in every district, rationalizing the number of special courts, and expediting trials despite stays granted by high courts.
Fact of the Case:

The court addressed the inordinate delay in inquiries and trials of criminal cases against legislators under various enactments, highlighting the backlog of cases, insufficiency of special courts, lack of public prosecutors, and delays in investigations and prosecutions.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that despite its initiatives, there was no substantial improvement in the disposal of pending criminal cases against legislators. It acknowledged the need for expeditious disposal of cases and emphasized the importance of ensuring the purity of democratically elected institutions.
Issues: The main issue was the inordinate delay in the disposal of criminal cases against legislators, leading to a backlog of cases and insufficient infrastructure for expeditious trials.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of cases and suggested measures such as setting up special courts in every district, rationalizing the number of special courts, and expediting trials despite stays granted by high courts.
Final Decision: The court directed the learned Chief Justices of each High Court to formulate an action plan for rationalization of the number of special courts necessary and to monitor the progress of trials. It also directed the listing of pending criminal cases involving legislators before appropriate benches for expeditious disposal.

ORDER :

1. This matter of paramount public importance pertaining to inordinately delayed inquiries/investigation and/or criminal trials, pending against legislators under various enactments first came up for hearing on 14.09.2016, when notice was issued. This court had earlier passed various orders intending streaming and speedy dispensation of justice delivery.

2. In furtherance of the above, by our earlier order dated 10.09.2020, we sought information from certain High Courts regarding criminal cases pending against legislators under special legislations such as the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 etc. The operative part of the said order reads as follows:

9. Taking into consideration the relief sought, the pleadings and the orders passed by this Court in this matter, it is clear that all the criminal cases even under special legislations, where MPs/MLAs (sitting or former) are involved are the subject matter of the present proceedings. Even though we have granted time to all the High Courts to furnish the requisite information, only the High Courts of Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Delhi, Jharkhand and Guwahati have done so. The remaining High Courts have not yet furnished the requisite information regarding cases pending against legislators (sitting or former) under the abovementioned special legislations, in compliance of our earlier orders.

10. In view of the above, we grant two daystime to all the remaining High Courts to provide the requisite details of the pending cases and their stages, in the format already approved vide order dated 05.03.2020, to the learned amicus curiae by way of email to enable him to make submissions in the matter on the next date of hearing. A copy of the same be also sent to the Secretary General of this Court.

11. Let the matter be listed on Wednesday, the 16th September, 2020.”

3. The revised office report indicates that 11 High Courts have submitted reports furnishing the information sought by us, with one of the High Courts having submitted the same only a night before this hearing. The learned amicus curiae, Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Senior Counsel, has submitted a supplementary report in addition to his report dated 08.09.2020, on the basis of the information furnished by 10 of the High Courts. The supplementary report indicates that there are about 175 cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 14 cases are pending under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against sitting/former legislators (MPs and MLAs). These are in addition to the 4442 criminal cases indicated to be pending as per the earlier report of the learned amicus dated 08.09.2020.

4. The learned amicus has recorded his analysis of the data received from the High Courts in paragraph 3 of his supplementary report, which is reproduced below:

b. In the States of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana and West Bengal, there is one Special Court for all cases against MPs/MLAs. In the State of Telangana apart from Special Court for MPs/MLAs, cases are also pending before Special Court, CBI. In all other States, these cases are pending in respective jurisdictional courts.

c. 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 Ju

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2020 Supreme(SC) 1011

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAN.V. RAMANA, SURYA KANT, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay & Ors. – PetitionersVersus Union Of India & Ors. - RespondentsWrit Petition (Civil) No.699 of 2016Decided On : 16-09-2020

The main legal principle established is the need for expeditious disposal of criminal cases against legislators, including setting up special courts, rationalizing the number of special courts, and expediting trials despite stays granted by high courts.

Cases Referred (1)

Related Judgments

Plastikos Packaging VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad

SYSTEMS MANUFACTURING LTD VS SYSTEMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 665

JOGENDRA SINGH VS SURESH MANJULAPUR - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 662

MYSORE WINE PRODUCTS AND ALLIED CO. LTD. , BANGALORE VS PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 663

Bose VS State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Salaikiramam P. S. , - 2000 Supreme(Mad) 1273

Jain Construction Company VS State of Rajasthan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 912

Voltas Limited VS Joint Collector, Medak - 2000 Supreme(AP) 945

STATE OF BIHAR VS SURENDRA SINGH RAUTELA ALIAS BENGALI - 2000 Supreme(Jhk) 45

Krishna Kumar VS Gulab Khan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 1546

KARSANBHAI DAHYABHAI PARMAR VS DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE - 2000 Supreme(Guj) 1009

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, SURYA KANT, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No.699 of 2016
Decided On : 16-09-2020