SC asks High Court Chief Justices to prepare Action Plan for expeditious disposal of pending cases against legislators [Read Order]

The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Chief Justices of all High Courts to prepare an action plan in order to expeditiously deal with pending cases against Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs).

The Bench of Justices NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy has now issued the following directions:

• The Chief Justice of each High Court should formulate and submit an action plan for rationalization of the number of Special Courts necessary, bearing in mind: the number of pending cases in each distrcit, the number of Special Courts needed proportionally, the number of courts currently available, the number of judges and their tenure, expected time for case disposal, the proximity of courts and adequacy of infrastructure.

• In the event the trials are already ongoing, the Chief Justice may also consider whether it is appropriate or necessary that the case should be transferred to a different Court.

• The Chief Justice should designate a Special Bench, comprising themselves and their designate, in order to monitor the progress of these trials.

• The Chief Justices are requested to give their comments on the other suggestions of the amicus curiae for the purpose of expedient disposal of pending criminal cases against legislators. Additional suggestions, if any, may also be sent to the Supreme Court.

• The action plan, with the comments and suggestions of the Chief Justices of the High Courts, is to be sent to the Secretary-General of the Supreme Court, preferably within a week. A copy may also be sent to the amicus curiae by way of e­ mail.

• The High Court Chief Justices have also been asked to list all pending criminal cases involving sitting/former legislators (MPs and MLAs), particularly those wherein a stay has been granted, before an appropriate bench(es) comprising of the Chief Justice and/or their designates.

• Upon these cases being listed, the Court must first decide whether the stay granted, if any, should continue, keeping in view the principles regarding the grant of stay enshrined in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited v. CBI

• In the event that a stay is considered necessary, the Court should hear the matter on a day­-to-­day basis and dispose of the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months, without any unnecessary adjournment.

• The COVID-19 condition should not be an impediment to the compliance of this direction, as these matters could be conveniently heard through video conferencing.

While passing the order, the Bench also remarked that special consideration is being given by the Court to this issue in view of the "rising wave of criminalization that was occurring in the politics in the country" and given the "power that elected representatives (sitting or former) wield, to influence or hamper effective prosecution."

The Court passed the directions in a batch of matters including a PIL filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeking the expeditious disposal of cases against legislators, both sitting and former (Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay and ors. v. Union of India).

During yesterday's hearing, the Court also took note of certain additional concerns and suggestions made by Amicus Curiae Vijay Hansaria on the issue.

Inter alia, Hansaria raised concern that in several cases, the proceedings have been stayed by the High Courts, thereby contributing to the cases' pendency.

Other concerns raised include that the number of Special Courts for hearing cases against MPs and MLAs are grossly insufficient, that there is a dearth of public prosecutors, cases warrants are not executed and witnesses not summoned, that cases were not taken to their logical conclusion and that chargesheets not filed even if an FIR or a preliminary enquiry is lodged etc.

Among other suggestions made to address these issues, Hansaria has also mooted that Special Courts should prioritise the following category of cases when it comes to trial, i.e.

• Offences punishable with death/life imprisonment;

• Offences under Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002;

• Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Offences under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012;

• Offences punishable with imprisonment for 7 years or more.

Hansaria added that cases against sitting legislators should be prioritised over those against former legislators.

The Court also recorded his suggestion that "No adjournment shall be granted except in rare and exceptional circumstances on a written application stating the ground of adjournment and for reasons to be recorded."

Notably, referring to cases stayed by the High Court, Hansaria relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBI to emphasise that stays cannot be unconditional or indefinite.

He suggested that trial courts should proceed with the trial against legislators, regardless of stays, unless a fresh order is passed to extend the stay. Alternatively, he proposed that High Court Registrar Generals may be directed to place such matters before the Chief Just for appropriate orders or urgent listing of such cases.

Other suggestions mooted included the appointment of nodal Prosecution Officers, establishment of safe and secure witness examination rooms and adopting appropriate rules for Video Conferencing.

For the Central Government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta emphasised that that State Governments should use funds alloted by the Central Government to provide the necessary infrastructure to dispose of pending cases against legislators in a time-bound manner.

On being queried over whether there were cases where sanction has not be given to carry forward cases against legislators where the investigating agency is a Central agency, Mehta undertook to file a status report on:

• Initiation and current stage of the investigation pending against sitting/ former legislators (MPs and MLAs) before the CBI, Enforcement Directorate and other central agencies,

• Pendency/ grant of sanctions for prosecution,

• The expected time for completion of the investigation and reasons for the delay in the same.

Mehta added that appropriate action would be taken by the nodal departments against any officer responsible for any unreasonable delay.

Appearing for the petitioner-side, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh added that the number of Special Courts per district should be rationalised, given that some districts may not have enough casese to warrant the establishment of a separate Court.

"There are districts where probably only 2-3 cases pending. A District Judge can be appointed for the State. Because otherwise, you would be wasting manpower", he submitted yesterday.

Singh added that it must be left to the discretion of the concerning High Court to decide on the number of Special Courts needed.

"I think Mr Vikas Singh is right. My district has 2-3 cases", Solicitor General Tushar Mehta responded.

The Bench agreed, orally observing that it is also leaving it to the Chief Justice of the concerned High Courts to make additional suggestions. The Court proceeded to incorporate this aspect as well in its directions.

The matter has been listed to be taken up after 2 weeks.

Read the Order: