Guidelines for Swift Disposal of Cases Involving MPs/MLAs issued to High Courts by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
In the case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UOI, the Supreme Court, consisting of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, issued a set of comprehensive directives on November 9. The focus of these directions was to expedite the resolution of pending criminal cases involving Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs).
The Court acknowledged the complexity of establishing uniform guidelines applicable across states and delegated the responsibility to individual High Courts, empowering them to formulate measures conducive to effective monitoring of such cases under Article 227.
Here are the specific directions issued by the Court for the timely disposal of pending cases:
1. Suo Motu Registration by Chief Justices: Chief Justices of High Courts were directed to register a suo motu case titled "In Re Designated Courts for MPs/MLAs" to oversee the expeditious resolution of pending criminal cases against MPs/MLAs. The case may be heard by a special bench led by the Chief Justice or a designated bench.
2. Regular Monitoring by Special Bench: The special bench overseeing the case may schedule regular hearings as deemed necessary. The High Court is authorized to issue orders and directions to ensure the speedy and effective disposal of cases. The bench can also seek assistance from the Advocate General or Prosecutor if required.
3. Allocation of Cases by Principal District & Sessions Judge: High Courts may assign the responsibility of allocating cases to a Principal District & Sessions Judge, who will periodically submit reports on case progress.
4. Priority for Certain Cases: Designated courts should prioritize cases involving (i) criminal offenses punishable with death or life imprisonment, (ii) cases with imprisonment terms of 5 years or more, and (iii) other cases. The trial court is advised not to adjourn cases except for rare and compelling reasons.
5. Review of Stay Orders: Chief Justices are tasked with listing cases with stay orders before the special bench to ensure appropriate orders, including vacation of the stay order, are passed for trial commencement.
6. Infrastructure Support: Principal District & Sessions Judges are responsible for ensuring adequate infrastructure facilities for designated courts, facilitating the adoption of technology for efficient functioning.
7. Transparency through Online Information: High Courts are required to create an independent tab on their websites, providing district-wise information about the filing year, number of pending cases, and stage of proceedings for enhanced transparency.
While monitoring these cases, the special bench is empowered to issue necessary orders or directions to ensure expeditious disposal.
The Court disposed of the first prayer in the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Ashwini Upadhyay, reserving consideration for other prayers related to disqualification criteria for MPs/MLAs. The petitioner challenges certain provisions of the Representation of Peoples Act concerning the term of disqualification and disqualification of government servants for corruption or disloyalty.
This PIL has been instrumental in prompting the Supreme Court to pass orders for the creation of Special Courts to expedite cases against sitting and former MPs/MLAs.