Expedite Trials In 216 Pending Criminal Cases Against Sitting And Former MPs/MLAs Where No Stay Operates: Madras High Court

The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan also directed the trial courts not to grant unnecessary adjournments in cases where the trial was pending for more than five years. The court also directed the expedited trial in cases where the higher courts had granted no stay.

“All cases where stay has not been granted by the higher courts, the Trial Courts are directed to expedite the trial; Cases which are pending for more than five years are required to be expedited. Unnecessary adjournments sought by any side should not be granted,” the court said.

The court was taking up a suo motu case to monitor the progress of cases pending in the Special Courts against MPs and MLAs in the state. The suo motu case was registered in furtherance of the Supreme Court's direction in the case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay and Others v Union of India.

When the case was taken up recently, the amicus curiae informed the court that 216 cases were pending against sitting and former MPs and MLAs in total in the state, of which 193 cases were pending in Tamil Nadu alone and 23 cases were pending in Puducherry.

When questioned about the pendency of trial, the court was informed that many of the cases remained pending without trial since interim orders had been passed by the higher court, due to which the trial could not proceed further.

The court then directed the counsel appearing for the High Court to submit, within 2 weeks, a complete list of cases relating to MPs and MLAs where interim orders had been granted by the High Court.

The court also directed the special courts to prioritise cases where the chargesheet had been filed but charges were yet to be framed. The court said that these cases should be given high priority and charges should be framed at the earliest without adjourning the case. The court made it clear that if several adjournments were seen to be granted to parties instead of framing charges, strict view of the same would be taken by it.

Further, in cases where charges had been framed, the court directed the special courts to ensure that evidence in completed at the earliest and once the witness appears in court, no adjournment is granted.

When the amicus pointed out that there were infrastructural deficiencies, and it had to be seen whether the existing digital infrastructure and sufficient, the court directed the Registrar General to obtain the views of the special courts on whether there were gaps in the infrastructure facility.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. V. Vijay Shankar

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. A. Edwin Prabakar, State Government Pleader Assisted By Mr. T. K. Saravanan, Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. R. Muniyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.Srinath Sridevan, Senior Counsel (amicus Curiae)

Case Title: Suo Motu v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case no: WP No.16154 of 2020