Higher court asks HCs to review all cases where trials against MPs and MLAs were postponed


The CS has now asked the superior judges of all the superior courts to immediately list the criminal cases that have not been carried out due to the orders of the superior courts.

The CS has now asked the superior judges of all the superior courts to immediately list the criminal cases that have not been carried out due to the orders of the superior court.

The Supreme Court also said that the superior judges of the superior court will appoint a special bench to monitor the progress of the trials against the current and former deputies.

  • CNN-News18 New Delhi
  • Last update: September 17, 2020 11:10 PM IST
  • FOLLOW US:

Underlining that speedy trials of corrupt politicians remain an elusive matter, the Supreme Court has asked the higher courts to review within two months all cases in which trials have been suspended.

The supreme court has also said that the superior judges of the superior courts will appoint a special court, composed of themselves and their appointees, to supervise the progress of the trials against current and former deputies.


Through a ruling in 2014, the Supreme Court had set a one-year deadline for the completion of trials against legislators in cases of serious crimes and corruption, while issuing a series of directives to speed it up by creating special courts.

Through an order issued on Thursday, a court, led by Judge NV Ramana, took further steps to ensure the implementation of this ruling, even though it regretted that “there has not been a substantial improvement in the situation with regard to the provision of pending criminal cases against deputies and former legislators in office “.

After a hearing on Wednesday, the court has asked the chief judges of all the superior courts to immediately list the criminal cases that have not been carried out due to the orders of the superior court.

In addition, we ask the Chief Magistrates of all Superior Courts to immediately list all pending criminal cases involving sitting / former legislators (MPs and MPs), particularly those in which a stay has been granted, before the courts. corresponding comprising learned Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and / or his designees, “the court said.

Upon being listed, the court said, the higher court must first decide whether the granted stay, if any, should continue, taking into account the 2018 higher court ruling. This ruling had held that if a case had been suspended for more than six months by the higher court, the trial court may resume proceedings despite the suspension.

The magistrate added in his order: “In the event that a suspension is deemed necessary, the Court must hear the matter on a day-to-day basis and dispose of it expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months, without unnecessary postponement.” .

The higher court further said that the COVID-19 pandemic should not be an impediment to the fulfillment of this direction, as these matters could be conveniently heard through video conferencing.

According to statistics presented to the court by amicus curiae and chief advocate Vijay Hansaria, politicians across the country face criminal trials in 4,442 cases. Of these, sitting parliamentarians and members of the board of directors are sub-tests on up to 2,556 of these matters.

Trials in 352 cases against deputies and ex-deputies in office and members of the Council of Justice have been delayed due to suspension orders issued by higher courts.

Up to 413 cases refer to crimes punishable by life imprisonment, of which sitting legislators are charged in 174 cases. A total of 175 cases are pending under the Law on Prevention of Corruption and 14 are under the Law on Prevention of Money Laundering.

The amicus curiae report, based on data collected from various higher courts, was submitted pursuant to a higher court-approved order on a PIL from BJP leader and lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay. The statement has sought a speedy trial of criminal cases against sitting and former lawmakers.

On the need for more special courts, the court asked the higher judges to present an action plan for rationalizing the number of special courts after taking stock of the statistics of pending cases in each district.

.