DB seeks details of trial pending against MPs, MLAs in courts

Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Sept 21: Division Bench of High Court headed by Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal, in a suo-moto Public Interest Litigation (PIL), has directed Advocate General and ASGI to file number of trials which are pending in different subordinate courts as well as the matters pending in the High Court against the MPs or MLAs.
The significant order has been passed by Division Bench in view of directions contained in the order dated 16.09.2020 of the Supreme Court passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.699/2016 directing for monitoring the progress of the trial of cases pending against the sitting/ former legislators (MPs or MLAs).
In this suo-moto motion, the Union of India shall be represented through Home Secretary, Union Territory of J&K through Commissioner Secretary Home and Union Territory of Ladakh through Commissioner Secretary, Home.
DB arrayed them as respondents with the direction that notice of this motion may be given to T M Shamsi, ASGI, who represents not only Union of India but Union Territory of Ladakh as well and D C Raina, Advocate General to Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
DB further directed both to inform the court on next date as to the number of trials which are pending in different subordinate courts as well as the matters pending in the High Court against the MPs or MLAs.
It is worthwhile to mention here that on September 16, 2020, Supreme Court while hearing a petition filed by Ashwani Kumar Upadhaya observed that one of the main objectives behind issuing notice in the present Writ Petition, and the various orders that have been passed time to time by this court, was to ensure that criminal prosecutions against elected representatives (MPs and MLAs) are concluded expeditiously.
The Apex Court was of the opinion that such special consideration was required not only because of the rising wave of criminalization that was occurring in the politics in the country, but also due to the power that elected representatives (sitting or former) wield, to influence or hamper effective prosecution.
Additionally, as legislators are the repositories of the faith and trust of their electorate, there is a necessity to be aware of the antecedents of the person that is/was elected. Ensuring the purity of democratically elected institutions is thus the hallmark of the present proceedings.
However, despite all the initiatives taken by the court in the present petition, there has been no substantial improvement in the situation when it comes to the disposal of pending criminal cases against sitting/former legislators (MPs and MLAs).
“With respect to increasing the number of Special Courts and rationalizing the pending criminal cases, we deem it appropriate that before passing any specific direction in respect thereto, it would be appropriate to direct the Chief Justice of each High Court to formulate and submit an action plan for rationalization of the number of Special Courts necessary with respect to total number of pending cases in each district, required number of proportionate Special Courts, number of courts that are currently available, number of Judges and the subject categories of the cases, tenure of the Judges to be designated, number of cases to be assigned to each Judge, expected time for disposal of the cases, distance of the courts to be designated and adequacy of infrastructure.