Summary
The Supreme Court issued directions for High Court monitoring and prioritised disposal of criminal cases against MPs and MLAs. Given differing local conditions, High Courts were to devise effective measures through special benches, designated courts, reports and public case-status information. The challenge to Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 remained pending and was not decided by this order.
Issues
- How criminal cases against legislators should be monitored and prioritised for expeditious disposal.
- Whether uniform detailed trial directions were suitable despite variations across jurisdictions.
- Whether the separate challenge to statutory disqualification was being decided.
Provisions considered
- Article 227, Constitution of IndiaHigh Courts’ superintendence over the district judiciary supported locally adapted monitoring and measures for early disposal, rather than a uniform nationwide trial-management formula. (¶ 16–20)
Held
- Substantial pendency and the democratic importance of timely adjudication warranted prioritisation. Differences in workloads, infrastructure, prosecutors and court practices required measures tailored by the respective High Courts. (¶ 12–19)
- Chief Justices must register a suo motu matter titled In Re: designated courts for MPs/MLAs, heard by a Special Bench presided over by the Chief Justice or an assigned bench, to monitor early disposal at appropriate intervals. The Advocate General or Public Prosecutor may be called to assist. (¶ 20(i)–(ii))
- High Courts may place allocation and reporting responsibility on Principal District and Sessions Judges. Designated courts must prioritise offences punishable with death or life imprisonment, then those punishable with five years or more, followed by other cases, avoiding adjournments except for rare and compelling reasons. (¶ 20(iii)–(iv))
- Chief Justices may list matters carrying trial stays before the Special Bench for appropriate orders, including vacation where warranted, to facilitate commencement and conclusion of trials. The final directions do not themselves automatically vacate every stay. (¶ 20(v))
- Principal District and Sessions Judges must ensure sufficient infrastructure and suitable technology. High Courts must publish district-wise filing-year, pendency and proceeding-stage information through an independent website tab, and may issue further necessary directions. (¶ 20(vi)–(vii))
- Only the first prayer for expeditious disposal was disposed of. The constitutional validity of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 was reserved for a later hearing. (¶¶ 1, 21–22)
Result
Petition disposed of only as to the first prayer, with directions for High Court monitoring, designated-court prioritisation, infrastructure and website disclosures. Petition to be listed separately on the constitutional validity of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.