Breaking| Two Judge Bench Of SC Refers Question Of Expeditious Disposal Of Criminal Cases Against Lawmakers To CJI For Placing Before Larger Bench
The Supreme Court today held that it would be inappropriate for a two-judge bench to reopen the issue of expeditious disposal of criminal cases against lawmakers, given that a three-judge bench had already addressed the matter in a previous ruling.
The Court was hearing a 2016 PIL filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeking uniform disqualification of convicted persons from the legislature, executive, and judiciary, along with a demand for a one-year timeline for deciding criminal cases against government members.
The Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan directed that the issue be placed before the Chief Justice of India for consideration by a larger bench.
However, the Court retained jurisdiction over the challenge to Sections 8 and 9 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, concerning the disqualification of convicted politicians, and sought a response from the Union of India and the Election Commission.
Concerns Over Criminalization of Politics
Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, acting as amicus curiae, presented an updated report on pending criminal cases against politicians, emphasizing that despite multiple court orders, 42% of sitting Lok Sabha members still face criminal cases, some pending for over 30 years.
He highlighted major roadblocks, including special MP/MLA courts handling other matters, excessive adjournments, and lack of strict procedural enforcement. He suggested that non-bailable warrants should be issued if an accused fails to appear twice consecutively.
However, Justice Manmohan questioned whether delays were uniform nationwide, remarking that in Delhi, MP/MLA court judges often finish hearings by mid-morning due to light case listings. He directed a state-wise study of case backlogs and judicial efficiency.
Disqualification of Convicted Politicians: A Legislative Loophole?
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh urged the court to address the re-entry of convicted individuals into politics, arguing that allowing those convicted of heinous crimes to return after a short sentence defeats democratic integrity.
“Our democracy has matured over 75 years, yet 46-48% of elected representatives have serious charges, including rape and murder. Parliament could not have intended such individuals to govern,” he contended.
Singh further criticized political parties for repeatedly fielding candidates with criminal records, dismissing their standard defense that these figures are merely "social workers falsely accused."
Judicial Propriety and the Role of High Courts
The Bench noted that a three-judge Supreme Court panel had already addressed the issue of expeditious trial disposal in a judgment dated November 9, 2023. Given the precedent, the Court deemed it inappropriate for the current two-judge bench to reopen the matter, directing the issue to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for consideration by a larger bench.
However, the Court retained jurisdiction over the challenge to Sections 8 and 9 of the Representation of the People Act (RP Act), 1951, which govern disqualification due to convictions. The Bench directed the Union of India time to file its counter-affidavit, failing which the Court may proceed to decide the matter without government input.
The Election Commission of India has also asked to submit its response.
Next Steps
The Court listed the matter after three weeks and is expected to deliberate further on the constitutional validity of Sections 8 and 9 of the RP Act and the broader implications of criminal convictions on political participation.
Previously
In 2023, the Amicus had informed the Court that imposing a six-year disqualification on elected representatives (MPs/MLAs) after the release of a convict lacks a clear connection and is evidently arbitrary, thus contravening Article 14 of the Constitution. Hansaria went on to propose to the Court that instead of a six-year ban, such convicts should face permanent disqualification.
"The law makers are required to be much more sacrosanct and inviolable than the persons holding office under such law. The Parliamentarians and the Legislators represent the sovereign will of the people and once found to have committed an offence involving moral turpitude, are liable to be permanently disqualified from holding the said office. Limiting the period of disqualification is a flagrant violation of the equality clause enriched in Article 14 of the Constitution", Hansaria had submitted.
Hansaria has filed its nineteenth report as per the directions of the Apex Court in the Public Interest Litigation filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeking the debarment of the convicted persons from the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary for life and adequate infrastructure to set up Special Courts to decide criminal cases related to People's Representatives Public Servants and Members of Judiciary within one year.
Cause Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 699/2016; Diary No. 29079/2016]
