Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Nov 9: With over 860 serious charges still pending against 194 MPs with the next Parliamentary elections due in about seven months, the Supreme Court on Thursday gave Chief Justices of High Courts the responsibility to form a Special Bench each in their High Courts to maintain a constant vigil over the criminal trials of Members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies, some of them accused of crimes punishable with death or life imprisonment, and ensure they reach the finish line.
A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, months ahead of the General Elections in 2024, spurred the State High Courts into action to prevent criminals from donning the mantle of lawmakers in the country. Amicus curiae Vijay Hansaria and advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, the petitioner, said 40% of the MPs and MLAs have criminal antecedents. This included at least 20 MPs facing charges of crimes against women, including four rape charges.
Delivering the verdict, Chief Justice Chandrachud said the High Courts were best suited for the role of monitoring the trials as they already had the power of superintendence over their respective district judiciary under Article 227 of the Constitution and could easily monitor the status of each case.
The Supreme Court directed the Chief Justices of High Courts to register suo motu cases in their respective jurisdictions titled ‘In re: Designated courts for MPs and MLAs’ to monitor the early disposal of criminal cases pending against the Members of Parliament and the State Legislative Assemblies. The Special Bench of each High Court may either be headed by the Chief Justice or comprise judges assigned by the Chief Justice.
The apex court said the High Courts should give Principal District Judges responsibility to allocate the cases to special designated courts for effective disposal of the pending criminal cases. The designated trial courts should give first priority to cases concerning offences punishable with death or life imprisonment and then for five years’ imprisonment and other charges with lesser punishment. The courts should allow no adjournments unless in rare or compelling circumstances.
The Special Bench of a State should monitor the progress of the trials by listing the suo motu case at regular intervals and by asking for information from the Principal District Judges through status reports on the progress of the pending trial proceedings. The Special Bench can avail of the assistance of the Advocate Generals of the States concerned and Public Prosecutors.
The High Courts should host an independent tab in their official websites providing district wise details of the year of filing of the criminal cases against the legislators and the status of the trial. The Chief Justices of High Courts should list and hear cases in which there was a stay of the trial passed by the Special Benches and pass appropriate orders, including vacation of the stay orders to ensure commencement and conclusion of the trial.
During the debate on the bill on women’s reservation recently, several MPs had voiced concern about the fact that many members have serious cases of crimes against women pending against them. Some MPs named or made veiled references to BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, former president of the Wrestling Federation of India, who is facing sexual harassment allegations from women wrestlers. A 1,000-page charge sheet filed by the Delhi police in June accused Mr Singh and former WFI staff member Virendra Tomar of offences under Sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 354A (sexual harassment), and 354D (stalking) of the Indian Penal Code. However, no action has yet been taken by the government or the BJP against Mr Singh.
The Trinamool Congress MP Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar had accused the BJP of not taking action against MPs accused of sexual harassment, citing the case against Mr Singh. CPI MP Elamaram Kareem from Kerala and Trinamool Congress MP Derek O’Brien from West Bengal also mentioned the sexual harassment case against the former WFI chief while critiquing the BJP in the Rajya Sabha. Trinamool MP Mausam Noor said, “What is the name of the Lok Sabha MP of yours who shamed us, who harassed our champion wrestlers? On behalf of the women of India, I want to know what he is still doing, sitting here in this new building.” Shiromani Akali Dal MP Harsimrat Kaur Badal said in the Lok Sabha, “In Haryana, a minister is accused of sexual assault but enjoys a cabinet rank status.” She also shared data on the number of MPs who have criminal cases pending against them.
According to an analysis compiled by the Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR), of 763 Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha MPs, 306 had criminal cases (40%) and 194 (25%) had serious criminal cases pending against them when they filed their affidavits. Serious criminal cases include non-bailable offences, murder, kidnapping, prevention of corruption, rape and other crimes against women.
