New Delhi, Feb 10 (Representative) The Supreme Court on Monday held that it would be inappropriate for a two-judge bench to reopen the issue of expeditious disposal of criminal cases against lawmakers, given that a three-judge bench had already addressed the matter in a previous ruling. A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan directed that the issue be placed before the Chief Justice of India for consideration by a larger bench. The Court was hearing a 2016 Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeking uniform disqualification of convicted persons from the legislature, executive, and judiciary, along with a demand for a one-year timeline for deciding criminal cases against government members.Justice Manmohan asked Mr. Upadhyay, your goal is something we need to achieve as a country. But we should not do a half-baked exercise. Otherwise, people will think they are being taken for a ride. Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, acting as amicus curiae, presented an updated report on pending criminal cases against politicians. He emphasized that despite multiple court orders, 42% of sitting Lok Sabha members still face criminal cases, some pending for over 30 years. He highlighted major roadblocks, including special MP/MLA courts handling other matters, excessive adjournments, and lack of strict procedural enforcement. Hansaria suggested issuing non-bailable warrants if an accused fails to appear twice consecutively. The Senior Advocate said that the matter could be kept after two weeks, as he has made a compilation of relevant judgments and other documents with concerns about the criminalisation of politics. The Bench said, “We are ready to hear every stakeholder.” Senior Advocate Vikas Singh says the matter should not be delayed on account of that.The court said it would give a fortnight. Stakeholders are free to come and address the court, that window will be open. The Bench said, “We may not strike down a provision, we will hear petitioner, then Union of India, States if they would like to address.. and thereafter we will hear others, the court said. Advocate Sidhant Kumar for the Election Commission of India sought permission to file a response. The Court said it would allow it.
A lawyer flagged some concerns about failure to expeditiously decide on a case against a politician who is facing PMLA and NIA charges. The lawyer said, “There are several special courts for POCSO. For MPs and MLAs, cases are going to designated courts. May I just pray for one thing? Justice Manmohan, The moment you cut flexibility, it makes a huge difference. Either we give the Chief the flexibility on how he wants to consider. The Lawyer said, There could be different situations, there may be 200 witnesses in some cases. But if the accused is elected and there is 1 witness.Justice Datta said, There can be many situations visualised.The Lawyer said, Therefore, I suggest if the High Court finds a situation like that, a particular court may be designated MP MLA Court. The Court asked the lawyer to communicate this concern to amicus and reiterated that it cannot pass a half-baked order.The lawyer urged the Court to keep his application pending. The Court dictated its interim order saying, “Prayers are twofold. So far as prayer (b) is concerned, it is brought to our notice that this Court, Coram comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice Manoj Misra (gave a judgment) which has dealt with prayer (b) and the court:… while making several directions, directed as follows. The matter relates to the expeditious disposal of cases against MPs and MLAs … Not much progress has been achieved in that, the court said. The Bench referred the matter of expeditious disposal of cases against MPs/MLAs to the Chief Justice of India for the constitution of the appropriate Bench.The Bench said, However, the matter of validity of Sections 8 and 9 of the Representation of Peoples Act survives for consideration and we propose to fix appropriate dates for (considering the same). The court gave three weeks to file counter affidavits and said it will proceed with hearing the matter if no response comes by then. The Apex Court also sought the assistance of the Attorney General of India in the matter (of challenge to the validity of Sections 8, and 9 of the Representation of Peoples Act).Advocate Sidhant Kumar for ECI also sought permission to file a response. The court agreed to give 3 weeks.
The Court also gave time for rejoinder, and it made it clear that it will proceed with hearing the matter if timely responses were not made.Court to ECI counsel, “Mr Sidhant, criminalisation of politics is a very major issue. The Election Commission must have applied its mind and come out with a better solution than what is canvassed before us. ECI counsel replied, “Certainly, I will place that before your lordships.The Bench directed, “Let affidavit by UOI and ECI first come in three weeks. However, the Court retained jurisdiction over the challenge to Sections 8 and 9 of the Representationof the People Act, 1951, concerning the disqualification of convicted politicians. The bench sought responses from the Union of India and the Election Commission of India. Hansaria has filed his nineteenth report as per the directions of the Top Court in the PIL filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, seeking the debarment of convicted persons from the legislature, executive, and judiciary for life, along with adequate infrastructure to set up special courts to decide criminal cases related to people’s representatives, public servants, and members of the judiciary within one year. The matter is listed for the next hearing on March 4.