Supreme Court of India (File photo)
NEW DELHI: Ongoing to secure rapid trials on 4,442 criminal cases pending against former deputies and sitting deputies and MLA in all states, The Supreme Court on Thursday he asked the Center to respond to a new sentence in a pending PIL that seeks a lifetime ban on politicians convicted of heinous election crimes.
Appearance of the defender and petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay, main defender Vikas singh He said there was a long list of serious crimes in which the conviction of a public servant resulted in his disqualification from holding a government post for life. “Why can’t the same criteria be applied to politicians who, under the People’s Representation Act, are lightly spared by being excluded from participating in elections for a period of six years after serving their sentence from jail? ” I ask.
A court of NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy judges sought the Center’s response within six weeks to the petition, in which the court had requested reports from all higher courts on pending cases against incumbent and former lawmakers . Amicus curiae Vijay Hansaria and attorney Sneha Kalita had collected the data and presented it to the court.
The bank stated in their order: “Although we had given all HCs time to provide the necessary information, only HCs in Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Delhi, Jharkhand and Gauhati have done so … We allowed two days time so that the remaining HCs provide the necessary information on pending cases and their stages ”.
The court noted a peculiar case, a 1983 murder case of a doctor in Tarn Taran, Punjab, in which former Akali Dal MLA Virsa Singh Valtoha is accused. The trial court brought charges against the politician after 36 years in 2019 and the case is a long way from completion. He asked the HCs to provide all the details by Sunday and posted the matter for an additional hearing on September 16.
Hansaria said that although the CS had directed the states to establish special courts to expedite the trial in these pending cases, the states of Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Telangana and West Bengal had established only one special court each for such cases. .
The amicus said that one of the reasons for the delay in the trial was that the defendant used money and muscle force to influence the witnesses who turned hostile and suggested that the court instruct the authorities to strictly implement the protection measures of witnesses. Furthermore, there are many cases in which arrest warrants issued by lower courts are not executed without bail to ensure the presence of accused legislators.
.
