Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

No Adjournment Except for Rare and Compelling Reasons in Criminal Cases Against MPs, MLAs: Supreme Court Formulates Guidelines for Expedited Trials

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark decision aimed at streamlining the judicial process and enhancing the transparency of the political system, the Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, has issued a significant judgment concerning the expeditious disposal of criminal cases against elected members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies. The apex court's decision came in the WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 699 OF 2016 filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay against the Union of India & Anr.

In its judgment dated November 9, 2023, the Supreme Court observed, "The Trial Courts shall not adjourn the cases except for rare and compelling reasons." This directive is part of a broader set of guidelines formulated by the Court to ensure that the trials involving elected representatives are conducted swiftly and effectively. The decision reflects the Court's commitment to upholding the integrity of the legal system and ensuring that justice is not delayed for public figures.

Chief Justice Chandrachud, in his judgment, emphasized the need for prioritizing these cases, stating, "There is a compelling need to make every effort to ensure that these cases are taken up on priority and decided expeditiously." This statement underscores the Court's concern about the impact of prolonged legal proceedings on public faith in democratic institutions and the legal system.

The Supreme Court has directed the High Courts to register a suo-motu case titled "In Re: designated courts for MPs/MLAs" to monitor the early disposal of these cases. The apex court stressed the importance of the High Courts' role in ensuring the effectiveness of these measures under Article 227, which grants them the power of superintendence over district judiciary.

The judgment also highlighted the systemic and institutional challenges in expediting trials and emphasized the vital role of the judiciary and the legal fraternity in addressing these issues. The Court's directive for a comprehensive approach, including the use of technology and witness protection, reflects its holistic view of the judicial process.

This decision is expected to have far-reaching implications on the handling of criminal cases involving politicians, potentially leading to a more accountable and transparent political environment. The judgment, while disposing of the petition concerning the expeditious trial of criminal cases against MPs and MLAs, has also set the stage for the subsequent hearing on the constitutional validity of Section 8 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.

Date of Decision: 9 November 2023

ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY VS UNION OF INDIA & ANR.   

Latest Legal News