Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Dr. S Muralidhar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prasanna S., AOR Ms. Rupali Samuel, Adv. Mr. MA Karthik, Adv. Ms. Ninni Susan Thomas, Adv. Ms. Pallak Bhagat, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Deepak Thukral, A.A.G. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR Ms. Pragya Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Drishti Saraf, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Adv. Mr. Ravi Vashisht, Adv.

Key Points: - Segregation of trial solely on account of appellant’s status as an MLA, without notice or hearing, violates Article 21 and procedural fairness. (!) (!) (!) - Discretion to file charge-sheets lies with the investigating agency; if offences arise from the same transaction, they must be tried together unless legally justified otherwise. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - Joint trials are the rule where offences arise from the same transaction; separate trials may be permissible only in exceptional circumstances with cogent grounds. (!) (!) (!) (!) - Mere presence of counsel does not constitute hearing; prior notice and fair opportunity to be heard are required. (!) - Prior directions (Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay) do not authorize procedural disadvantages to legislators or override Cr.P.C. norms. (!) (!) - The Court concluded that the segregation orders were unsustainable and quashed them, remitting to conduct a joint trial. (!) (!) (!)

How to determine when segregation of trial is permissible under Cr.P.C. and Article 21?

What is the proper approach to joint versus separate trials when offences arise from the same transaction?

What are the grounds required to justify or quash a suo motu order directing separate charge-sheets and segregated trials for a legislator?