Supreme Court Directs Expeditious Trial of Criminal Cases Against MPs and MLAs (2023) INSC 991

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: November 9, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 991
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J., Manoj Misra, J.

How can the judicial system ensure that criminal cases against elected officials are resolved quickly, maintaining public trust in democracy? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question, focusing on the need for speedy trials for sitting and former Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs). The Court has issued a series of directions to the High Courts to monitor these cases actively. This judgment emphasizes the importance of an efficient legal process in upholding the integrity of the political system. The bench comprised of Chief Justice of India Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, and Justice Manoj Misra.

Case Background

The case began as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking two main reliefs: first, the quick disposal of criminal cases against elected MPs and MLAs, and second, a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. This judgment focuses on the first prayer, concerning the expeditious disposal of criminal cases. The Supreme Court has been monitoring this issue since 2017, issuing several orders to ensure these cases are heard and decided promptly. The Court noted that there are a large number of pending cases which directly impact political democracy.

Initially, the Court considered setting up special courts but later decided to earmark specific courts in each district for these cases. The Court directed High Courts to prioritize cases involving serious offenses and sitting legislators. The Court has also sought detailed information from High Courts regarding the status of these cases, including the nature of the offenses, the dates of FIRs, charge sheets, and the current stage of the proceedings.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to several key legal provisions and previous court orders. The primary focus is on ensuring the expeditious disposal of criminal cases against elected representatives. The judgment cites:

• Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: This section deals with the disqualification of individuals convicted of certain offenses from contesting elections. The judgment notes that the constitutional validity of this section will be considered in a later hearing.

• Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the withdrawal of prosecution by the Public Prosecutor. The court sought information on orders withdrawing prosecution under this section.

• Article 32 of the Constitution of India: This article grants the Supreme Court the power to issue directions or orders for the enforcement of fundamental rights, under which this writ petition was filed.

• Article 227 of the Constitution of India: This article grants the High Courts the power of superintendence over the district judiciary.

The judgment also refers to the directions issued in Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India [(2015) 11 SCC 433] which mandated the conclusion of trials against sitting MPs and MLAs within one year from the date of framing of charges.

Arguments

The arguments in this case revolved around the need for an effective mechanism to ensure the speedy trial of criminal cases against MPs and MLAs. The Amicus Curiae, Mr. Vijay Hansaria, played a key role in suggesting measures for the efficient disposal of these cases.

• Amicus Curiae: The Amicus Curiae suggested that instead of setting up special courts, specific courts in each district should be designated for these cases. The Amicus also proposed a detailed protocol for the functioning of these designated courts, including prioritizing cases, witness protection, and regular monitoring by the High Courts.

• Union of India: The Union of India initially proposed setting up twelve special courts. However, they later agreed with the Amicus’s suggestion to designate specific courts in each district. The Union also expressed its willingness to bear the financial implications of these measures.

• State Governments: The State Governments expressed their concern and earnestness in ensuring early disposal of the subject cases, and also submitted the necessary information as sought by the Court.

• High Courts: The High Courts provided information about the status of pending cases, the available infrastructure, and the challenges in ensuring speedy trials. They also provided their comments and suggestions on the measures proposed by the Amicus Curiae.

The innovativeness of the arguments lies in the shift from a centralized approach of setting up special courts to a decentralized approach of designating existing courts in each district. This approach was deemed more practical and efficient, considering the diverse conditions across different states and districts.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issues addressed throughout the judgment can be summarized as follows:

1. How to ensure the expeditious disposal of criminal cases against sitting and former Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs)?
2. What measures should be taken to monitor the progress of these cases effectively?
3. How to address the variations in infrastructure and resources across different states and districts to ensure fair and speedy trials?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court referred to the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court’s judgment is primarily focused on ensuring the expeditious disposal of criminal cases against MPs and MLAs. The Court has not made any specific comments on the merits of the case, but has given directions to the High Courts to monitor the cases.

The Court also considered the authorities as follows:

• Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India [(2015) 11 SCC 433]: The Court reiterated the directions given in this case and emphasized the need for speedy trials.
• Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd vs. CBI [2018 (16) SCC 299]: The Court used this case to highlight that stay orders should not be indefinite and that trials should be concluded expeditiously.
• Mahender Chawla vs Union of India [2018 (16) SCC 299]: The Court used this case to emphasize the importance of witness protection and the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018.
• All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 673]: The Court used this case to emphasize that the district judiciary is a part of the basic structure of the constitution.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to ensure the integrity of the political system by expediting the resolution of criminal cases against elected representatives. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining public trust and confidence in the democratic process. The Court was also influenced by the practical challenges of implementing a uniform solution across the diverse states and districts of India.

The Court’s reasoning was driven by the need to balance the legal requirements of speedy trials with the practical realities of the Indian judicial system. The Court recognized that a uniform solution would not work across all states and districts, and therefore, it delegated the responsibility of monitoring and implementing the directions to the High Courts.

The Court considered the following alternative interpretations:

• Setting up of Special Courts: The Court initially considered setting up special courts but rejected this approach due to the practical and financial implications. The court found that it would be more efficient to use the existing infrastructure and designate specific courts in each district.

• Issuing Uniform Guidelines: The Court also considered issuing uniform guidelines for all trial courts but rejected this approach due to the vast differences in the conditions across states and districts. The Court decided to leave it to the High Courts to evolve the measures they deem fit.

The final decision was reached after considering the practical challenges, the need for flexibility, and the importance of maintaining public trust in the democratic process.

The Court’s decision can be summarized as follows:

• The High Courts shall register a suo-motu case to monitor the early disposal of criminal cases against MPs and MLAs.

• The High Courts shall constitute a special bench to hear the suo motu case.

• The High Courts may issue such orders and directions as necessary for the expeditious and effective disposal of the subject cases.

• The Principal District and Sessions Judge shall be responsible for allocating the subject cases to appropriate courts.

• The designated courts shall prioritize cases punishable with death or life imprisonment, followed by cases punishable with imprisonment for 5 years or more, and then other cases.

• The Trial Courts shall not adjourn cases except for rare and compelling reasons.

• The High Courts shall list cases where stay orders have been passed before the special bench to ensure that appropriate orders are passed to ensure commencement and conclusion of trial.

• The Principal District and Sessions Judge shall ensure sufficient infrastructure facility for the designated courts.

• The High Courts shall create an independent tab on their website providing district-wise information about the subject cases.

The judgment includes the following quotes:

“These cases have a direct bearing on our political democracy. Hence, there is a compelling need to make every effort to ensure that these cases are taken up on priority and decided expeditiously.”

“Confidence and trust of the constituency in their political representative, be it an MP or an MLA, is necessary for an interactive, efficient and effective functioning of a parliamentary democracy.”

“Under Article 227, the High Courts are entrusted with the power of superintendence over the district judiciary. We deem it appropriate to leave it to the High Courts to evolve such method or apply such measure that they deem expedient for an effective monitoring of the subject cases.”

Key Takeaways

• High Courts to Monitor: The High Courts are now responsible for actively monitoring the progress of criminal cases against MPs and MLAs.

• Priority for Serious Offenses: Cases involving serious offenses, such as those punishable with death or life imprisonment, will be given priority.

• No Unnecessary Adjournments: Trial courts are directed not to adjourn cases except for rare and compelling reasons.

• Infrastructure and Technology: The Principal District and Sessions Judges are responsible for ensuring adequate infrastructure and technology in designated courts.

• Transparency: High Courts are required to provide district-wise information about the subject cases on their websites.

The judgment is expected to have a significant impact on the handling of criminal cases against elected representatives. The High Courts will now play a more active role in ensuring that these cases are resolved quickly and efficiently. This is expected to enhance public trust and confidence in the democratic process.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The Learned Chief Justices of the High Courts shall register a suo-motu case titled “In Re: designated courts for MPs/MLAs” to monitor early disposal of criminal cases pending against the members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies.

• The suo-motu case may be heard by the Special Bench presided by the Learned Chief Justice or a bench assigned by them.

• The Special Bench may list the matter at regular intervals as is felt necessary.

• The High Court may issue such orders and/or directions as are necessary for expeditious and effective disposal of the subject cases.

• The High Court may require the Principal District and Sessions Judge to bear the responsibility of allocating the subject cases to such court or courts as is considered appropriate and effective.

• The designated courts shall give priority to criminal cases against MP’s & MLA’s punishable with death or life imprisonment, then to cases punishable with imprisonment for 5 years or more, and then hear other cases.

• The Trial Courts shall not adjourn the cases except for rare and compelling reasons.

• The learned Chief Justices may list cases in which orders of stay of trial have been passed before the Special Bench to ensure that appropriate orders, including vacation of stay orders are passed to ensure commencement and conclusion of trial.

• The Principal District and Sessions Judge shall ensure sufficient infrastructure facility for the designated courts and also enable it to adopt such technology as is expedient for effective and efficient functioning.

• The High Courts shall create an independent tab on their website providing district-wise information about the details of the year of filing, number of subject cases pending and stage of proceedings.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment analysis in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Courts are responsible for monitoring the progress of criminal cases against MPs and MLAs, and are empowered to issue such directions as are necessary to ensure the expeditious disposal of such cases. This judgment does not change any previous positions of law, but it does provide a clear direction for the High Courts to actively monitor these cases.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment directs the High Courts to actively monitor criminal cases against MPs and MLAs, ensuring that these cases are resolved quickly and efficiently. The Court has delegated the responsibility of monitoring and implementing the directions to the High Courts, recognizing the diverse conditions across different states and districts. This judgment is a significant step towards enhancing public trust and confidence in the democratic process by ensuring that elected representatives are held accountable under the law.