New Delhi, September 9
Politicians throughout the nation are dealing with felony trials in 4,442 circumstances and of those, sitting MPs and MLAs are undertrials in as many as 2,556 such issues, the information supplied by all of the High Courts to the Supreme Court has revealed.
The prime courtroom, listening to pleas to think about the problem of speedy disposal of felony circumstances in opposition to elected representatives to Parliament and state legislatures, together with former MPs and MLAs, had directed Registrar Generals of all of the High Courts to furnish data concerning pending circumstances in opposition to lawmakers.
“The reports submitted by all High Courts show that there are total number of 4,442 cases pending, out of which in 2,556 cases sitting legislators are accused persons. Trial in 352 cases are held up due to stay granted by higher courts,” mentioned the report, compiled and tabulated by amicus curiae and senior advocate Vijay Hansaria.
“In 2,556 cases sitting legislators are accused persons. The number of legislators involved are more than total number of cases since there are more than one accused in one case, and the same legislator is an accused in more than one case,” the 25-page affidavit mentioned.
The report was filed in pursuance of an order handed by the highest courtroom on a PIL of BJP chief and lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay. The plea has sought speedy trial of felony circumstances in opposition to sitting and former lawmakers.
Hansaria, within the affidavit, additionally supplied the state-wise record of circumstances through which trials are stopped because of the keep orders of the superior courts.
“Trial of 352 cases have been stayed by the High Court and this Hon’ble Court. 413 cases relate to offences punishable with life imprisonment, out of which 174 cases sitting legislators are accused,” it mentioned.
As per the report, Uttar Pradesh tops the chart the place there are 1,217 pending circumstances in opposition to lawmakers, of which sitting legislators are accused in 446 such issues.
In Bihar, there are 531 circumstances, out of which in 256 circumstances sitting legislators are accused, it mentioned.
Many circumstances are registered below the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the Arms Act, the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and the defamation below part 500 IPC, it mentioned.
The Amicus Curiae has additionally given varied recommendations to the courtroom for making certain speedy trials in circumstances involving politicians.
Suggesting particular courts in each district for MPs/MLAs, it mentioned, the excessive courts needs to be monitoring such circumstances.
“Each High Court shall register a Suo Motu case with the title ‘In Re:Special Courts for MPs/MLAs’ to monitor the progress of cases pending in the State and ensure compliance of directions of this Court,” the affidavit advised.
“Each High Court may be directed to assign/allocate criminal cases involving former and sitting legislators to as many Sessions Courts and Magisterial Courts as the respective High Courts may consider proper, fit and expedient having regard to the number and nature of pending cases. Such decisions may be taken by the High Courts within four weeks of the order,” it mentioned.
It advised that particular courts ought to give precedence to the trial of circumstances in offences punishable with dying or life imprisonment.
Then the offences punishable with imprisonment for seven years or extra may be quick tracked, it mentioned.
“Cases involving sitting legislators to be given priority over former legislators,” it advised, including “Forensic laboratories will give priority in furnishing the report in respect of cases being tried by the Special Courts and will submit all pending reports within one month.”
The prime courtroom had handed the order directing that “in relation to sitting MPs and MLAs who have charges framed against them for the offences which are specified in Sections 8(1), 8(2) and 8(3) of the RP Act, the trial shall be concluded as speedily and expeditiously as may be possible and in no case later than one year from the date of the framing of charge(s).”
In such circumstances, so far as attainable, the trial shall be carried out on a day-to-day foundation, it mentioned.
If for some extraordinary circumstances the courtroom involved isn’t in a position to conclude the trial inside one yr from the date of framing of cost, it will submit the report back to the Chief Justice of the respective High Court indicating particular causes for not adhering to the time restrict and delay in conclusion of the trial, it ordered.
In such scenario, the Chief Justice of the High Court could concern applicable instructions to the courtroom involved extending the time for conclusion of the trial, the highest courtroom had ordered. — PTI