Special MP/MLA courts manned by Sessions Judge can hear cases triable by Magistrate: Amicus to Supreme Court

In a matter concerning trials in cases against sitting and former lawmakers, Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria told the Supreme Court that no illegality can be attached to the constitution of special courts at the sessions level for trial of both sessions cases and magisterial trial cases..The 15th report of the Amicus Curiae in the matter was filed after a plea was moved by Samajwadi Party leader and Member of Parliament Azam Khan seeking directions for setting up of a special magistrate court in Rampur, Uttar Pradesh. Khan submitted that as per the order of the top court, only a magistrate can try cases against legislators and not the sessions judge..Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Khan, had submitted that Uttar Pradesh had no magistrates trying cases against legislators, and it was only the sessions judges doing so..The Bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant had sought to know from the amicus whether a sessions judge can indeed hear the said cases..Hansaria, in his 15th report filed today, stated that the constitution of special courts trying cases against Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs), under the direction of the Supreme Court issued in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution, is valid, "and no illegality or unconstitutionality can be attached to trial of cases by these Courts against MPs/MLAs.”.“All the accused persons are granted a fair trial as per the Constitutional norm. The cases are tried by judicial officers trained in law and no special procedure less advantageous to accused persons has been prescribed for trial of the cases. The cases are tried by the independent and qualified judges as per the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure. MPs and MLAs constitute a separate class in themselves and expeditious trial of criminal cases against them by Special Courts do not suffer from any constitutional infirmity,” the report said..The report further said that magisterial trial cases already concluded or pending trial will not be open to challenge only on the ground that the final judgment and/or the interim orders have been passed by the special court headed by an officer of the rank of sessions judge.Further, the amicus, who is assisted by Advocate Sneha Kalita, stated that the constitution of special courts “both at the Sessions level and the magistrate level is desirable.”.“No illegality can be attached to the constitution of Special Courts at Sessions level for trial of both sessions cases and magisterial trial cases, as the accused persons will get a fair trial before the said court. The right of first appeal is not taken away, and instead of session court, the appeal would lie to the High Court. The right of revision is not an inherent right but only a supervisory jurisdiction,” the amicus report said..The amicus, therefore, urged the Bench to issue directions to all High Courts and state governments to constitute special courts both at sessions and magistrate levels in each district or group of districts as may be considered appropriate, having regard to the number of cases and geographical location.He further suggested that the special courts may be directed to conduct trials against MPs and MLAs on priority and on a day-to-day basis..“These Courts will take up other cases only after the trial of criminal cases of MPs/MLAs are completed and in terms of the directions issued from time to time in the present proceedings,” the amicus suggested..In this regard, he also suggested that special courts manned by sessions judges/additional sessions judges, shall transfer cases triable by the magistrate to the special court presided over by the magistrate under the respective jurisdiction, and that the magistrate shall conduct the trial from the stage the file has been received.