The Supreme Court decided today to hear a petition seeking a rapid trial of criminal proceedings against politicians and prompt inquiry by the CBI and other agencies after April 15.
Senior counsel and amicus curiae Vijay Hansaria urged a bench led by Chief Justice NV Ramana to submit the case for urgent hearing since, despite multiple high court directives on expedited trial of politicians, approximately 2000 cases had been pending trial for the past five years.
Mr Hansaria requested an urgent temporary injunction at the outset, claiming that a detailed 16th report on the pendency of trials against politicians in the country had been filed, and that numerous criminal cases were pending in lower courts as a result of it.
"They can wait for years outside. It's no problem. When it comes to the Supreme Court, once you get there, it (the issue) will become very urgent "The bench, which also included justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli, said as much.
"This is a case in which the public interest is at stake (PIL). We've completed a few tasks. It's happening right now. Please take a moment to wait. The issue is that the judges must be ready at all times... I will disturb two benches if I create a special bench for this scenario. Is it okay if I disrupt two benches on a Friday?" India's Chief Justice stated.
After being pressed by the amicus curiae, which was aided by lawyer Sneha Kalita, the Chief Justice agreed to hear the case after April 15.
Meanwhile, the bench said it can grant some temporary motions from high courts seeking the transfer of special judges who are conducting trials against politicians on various grounds.
On February 9, the bench agreed to consider scheduling the petition for an early hearing.
Mr Hansaria had stated that a new report had been filed with the court detailing the outstanding cases against serving and former MPs, MLAs, and MLCs, and that urgent, rigorous steps were required to expedite the resolution of the existing criminal proceedings.
According to a recent study, there are currently 4,984 complaints outstanding against Members of Parliament and Members of the Legislative Assembly/Council, with 1,899 instances dating back more than five years.
Meanwhile, the bench said it can grant some temporary motions from high courts seeking the transfer of special judges who are conducting trials against politicians on various grounds.
On February 9, the bench agreed to consider scheduling the petition for an early hearing.
Mr Hansaria had stated that a new report had been filed with the court detailing the outstanding cases against serving and former MPs, MLAs, and MLCs, and that urgent, rigorous steps were required to expedite the resolution of the existing criminal proceedings.
According to a recent study, there are currently 4,984 complaints outstanding against Members of Parliament and Members of the Legislative Assembly/Council, with 1,899 instances dating back more than five years.
According to the data, the total number of cases outstanding in December 2018 was 4,110, and it was 4,859 in October 2020.
"Even after the disposition of 2,775 instances after December 4, 2018, the number of cases against MPs/MLAs rose from 4,122 to 4,984. This demonstrates that a growing number of people with criminal records get elected to Parliament and state legislatures. It is critical that immediate and strict measures be implemented to expedite the resolution of ongoing criminal cases "According to the report, which was filed through attorney Kalita,
On the plea filed by lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay seeking expedited trial of cases against MPs and swift investigation by the CBI and other agencies, the Supreme Court has issued a plethora of directives from time to time.
According to Mr Hansaria, the status report filed by high courts also shows that special courts have been established in some states, while in others, the courts of the appropriate jurisdiction are conducting trials in accordance with the orders issued from time to time.
The Supreme Court had asked the Allahabad High Court to issue a new notification to set up special magisterial courts to try minor offences involving lawmakers and ensure that cases were assigned to sessions or magisterial courts depending on the gravity of the offences, saying that the state's failure to do so was "based on an obvious misconstruction" of its orders.
The top court took issue with the high court's failure to establish special magisterial courts in Uttar Pradesh to try politicians for minor offences, claiming that the notification issued by the high court on August 16, 2019, was based on a "obvious misconstruction" of its orders.
The ruling was issued in response to arguments that a special court presided over by a sessions judge who is senior to a judicial magistrate can punish parliamentarians for minor offences that are triable by magisterial courts.