The Madras High Court has directed the Trial Courts to expedite trials in the criminal cases pending against sitting and former MPs and MLAs in the State where no stay operates.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition seeking expedition of pending criminal trials against the public representatives.

The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan held, "We have gone through the other details with regard to the year in which the criminal cases were instituted and also the present status. There are many old cases where trial has not been concluded and has remained pending at various stages. One of the reasons for pendency of trial, as stated in the report, is that interim orders have been passed by higher courts, due to which, the trial is not proceeding further."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate V. Vijay Shankar while the Respondent was represented by State Government Pleader A. Edwin Prabakar.

It was brought to Court's notice that there are as many as 216 criminal cases pending against sitting / former MPs and MLAs in the State of Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of Puducherry.

The Court directed the Counsel appearing for the High Court to submit a complete list of all those cases relating to MPs and MLAs where interim order has been granted by the High Court within two weeks.

It also issued a slew of following directions:

(i) All cases where stay has not been granted by the higher courts, the Trial Courts vare directed to expedite the trial;

(ii) Cases which are pending for more than five years are required to be expedited. Unnecessary adjournments sought by any side should not be granted;

(iii) Cases where charge sheet has been filed but charges have not been framed, the concerned trial court shall take up those cases on high priority and ensure that charges are framed at the earliest and cases are not repeatedly adjourned from time to time only for the purpose of framing of charges. If it is found that only in the name of framing of charges, several adjournments have been granted to the parties, a strict view of the same would be taken by this Court.

(iv) Where charges have been framed, it has to be ensured that evidence is also concluded at the earliest. Once a witness appears in Court, no adjournment shall be granted and the witness shall have to be examined.

(v) All attempts should be made to conclude the trial at the earliest.

The matter has been listed for November 25, 2025 for next hearing.

Cause Title: Suo Motu Writ Petition v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate V. Vijay Shankar

Respondent- State Government Pleader A. Edwin Prabakar, Additional Public Prosecutor T. K. Saravanan, Additional Public Prosecutor R.Muniyapparaj, Senior Counsel Srinath Sridevan

Click here to read/ download Order








Madras High CourtChief Justice Manindra Mohan ShrivastavaJustice G.Arul Murugan

Sheetal Joon