No Uniform Guidelines To Prohibit MLAs and MP’s Convicted To Serious Offences From Elections; Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday stated that it would be difficult for the court to lay down uniform guidelines on matter pertaining to expeditious disposal of criminal cases against MPs and MLAs. The top court was producing verdict in the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, seeking a lifetime ban from elections on MP’s or MLA’s convicted to serious offences.

“It would be difficult for it to lay down uniform guidelines”, said the bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud. The bench also left the matter to the concerned High Courts to evolve measures for effective monitoring of such cases.

On the matter, the court produced seven directions to the High Courts to monitor the early disposal of cases against MLA’s and MP’s, reported the Live Law. The directions were said by a bench comprised of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra in observation that it is difficult for the Supreme Court to lay down uniform guidelines applicable across the States.

The general directions for monitoring of early disposal of pending cases, as reported by the Live Law, are:

1. The High Court Chief Justice’s must register a suo moto case “In Re Designated Courts for MPs/MLAs” to monitor early disposal of pending criminal cases against MPs/MLAs. A suo moto is a situation where a court or other authority takes action without being prompted or requested to do so by another party. The thus registered suo motu cases are supposed to be heard by a special bench led by the CJ of HC to monitor the early disposal of pending cases.
2. The special bench who are hearing the suo motu case may list the matter at regular intervals as felt necessary. The HC may issue such orders and directions as necessary for expeditious and effective disposal of the cases.
3. The High Court may require a Principal District & Sessions Judge to bear the responsibility of allocating the subject cases to such court(s). The HC may call upon the Principal District & Sessions Judge to send reports on such intervals.
4. The designated court shall give priority – (i) to criminal cases against MPs/MLAs punishable with death or life imprisonment, (ii) cases punishable with imprisonment for 5 years or more, (iii) other cases. The trial court shall not adjourn the cases except for rare and compelling reasons.
5. The Chief Justice may list the cases where stay of the trial has been passed before the special bench to ensure that appropriate orders, including vacation of the stay order, are passed to ensure the commencement of the trial.
6. The Principal District & Sessions Judge shall ensure sufficient infrastructure facilities for the designated court and also enable it to adopt such technology as expedient for effective functioning.
7. The High Court shall create an independent tab on the website providing district-wise information about the details of year of the filing, number of subject cases pending and the stage of proceedings.

While producing the directions, the court disposed the first prayer in the PIL and the writ petition is kept pending to consider the other prayers which seek to bar convicted MPs/MLAs and persons who are dismissed from government service for corruption or disloyalty from contesting any elections for life.

Through the petition, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay was challenging the provisions of the Representation of Peoples Act which restrict the term of disqualification as the period of sentence plus six years after the release and the disqualification on government servants who a are dismissed for corruption or disloyalty to five years from the date of such dismissal.