No Illegality In Establishing 'Offender Centric' Courts For Trial Of MPs/MLAs: Amicus Curiae Tells Supreme Court [Read Report]

Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, Amicus Curiae in the matter concerning expeditious disposal of criminal cases pending against former/sitting legislators, has told the Supreme Court that there is no illegality in designating special Courts for trial of such MPs/MLAs. "In the present case, this Hon'ble Court has directed expeditious trial of criminal cases against MPs/ MLAs by designating Special Courts in view of the fact that offenders are or have been legislators, who constitute a class in themselves, and speedy trial of such cases is in public interest. The legislators are lawmakers who lay down policies for socio-economic development of the country and are responsible for upholding constitutional morality. It is on record that a large number of cases, including heinous offences, are pending in the courts not only for years but for decades. In such circumstances a special mechanism for speedy trial of these cases cannot be flawed," a Report filed by the Senior Advocate states. The submission comes in response to the exemption sought by the Madras High Court from establishing Special Courts for trial of cases involving MPs and MLAs. The High Court had claimed that it is not legally permissible to create Special Courts for trial of MPs/ MLAs as Special Courts can only be "Offence Centric" and not "Offender Centric". It was further submitted that there are already Special Courts under the SC/ST Act, POCSO Act, and PC Act and other Central and State enactments, for exclusive trial of the offence under those Acts, and there was no scope to establish another set of Courts to try a particular category of offenders. Disputing this contention, the amicus has submitted, "Statutory Special Courts constituted under PC Act, SC/ST Act, PML Act, POCSO Act or any other statute made by Parliament or State legislature shall 'ordinarily' have jurisdiction to try cases for offences committed under these statutes. However, trial of cases under the special statutes by the Special Courts MP/ MLAs are valid and do not suffer from any constitutional infirmity as these courts have been constituted under the direction of this Hon'ble Court issued in exercise of the power under Article 142 of the Constitution." Amicus Curiae Submits Action Plans Filed By Various High Courts For Speedy Disposal Of Criminal Cases Against MPs/MLAs Reliance is placed on the case of Public Interest Foundation v. UOI, (2015) 11 SCC 433, where by the Top Court had directed as under: "We, accordingly, direct that in relation to sitting MPs and MLAs who have charges framed against them for the offences which are specified in Sections 8(1), 8(2) and 8(3) of the RP Act, the trial shall be concluded as speedily and expeditiously as may be possible and in no case later than one year from the date of the framing of charge(s)." The amicus further pointed out, "The trial of these cases does not otherwise suffer from breach of any constitutional provision nor any accused person has alleged violation of any fundamental right." No special procedure less advantageous to the accused persons Significantly, the Madras High Court had relied upon the observations made a five-Judge Bench in the 2:3 majority judgment rendered in the case of Anwar Ali Sarkar. In that case, the High Court struck down Section 5(1) of the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950 which authorized setting up of Special Courts for trial of "such offences or class of cases, as the classes of offences or cases or classes of cases, as the State Government may by general or special order in writing, direct." While striking down the provision, Justice Saiyid Fazl Ali in his majority verdict had observed, "The impugned Act has completely ignored the principle of classification followed in the Code and it proceeds to lay down a new procedure without making any attempt to particularize or classify the offences or cases to which it is to apply. An Act which gives uncontrolled authority to discriminate cannot but be hit by Article 14 and it will be no answer simply to say that the legislature having more or less the unlimited power to delegate has merely exercised that power." The amicus has submitted that in Anwar Ali case, the Top Court had struck down the Act not on the ground that there cannot be 'offender centric' classification, but on the ground that the Act prescribed a procedure less favourable to accused persons vis a vis prescribed under CrPC. In the present case, the amicus has submitted, "No special procedure less advantageous to the accused persons has been prescribed for trial of cases involving MPs/ MLAs; these cases are tried as per general procedure prescribed under Cr.P.C. All that has been done is to designate a particular officer to try cases in an expeditious manner, who otherwise has jurisdiction to conduct the trial. It is thus submitted that directions passed by this...

No Illegality In Establishing 'Offender Centric' Courts For Trial Of MPs/MLAs: Amicus Curiae Tells Supreme Court [Read Report]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

No Illegality In Establishing 'Offender Centric' Courts For Trial Of MPs/MLAs: Amicus Curiae Tells Supreme Court [Read Report]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers