The Supreme Court ruled that a two-judge bench cannot revisit expediting criminal trials for lawmakers, as a three-judge bench already addressed the issue. The Court is examining the constitutional validity of Sections 8 and 9 of the RP Act, 1951, amid challenges in the judicial process, including delays and the influence of convicted politicians on democracy.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday (Feb 10th) ruled that a two-judge bench cannot reopen the issue of expediting criminal trials against lawmakers, as a three-judge bench had already addressed the matter in a previous judgment. The Court was hearing a 2016 PIL filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, which sought a uniform disqualification of convicted persons across the legislature, executive, and judiciary, along with a one-year deadline for deciding criminal cases involving public representatives.
A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan directed that the issue be placed before the Chief Justice of India (CJI) 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, which govern the disqualification of convicted politicians, and sought a response from the Union of India and the Election Commission.
Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, acting as amicus curiae, presented an updated report on pending criminal cases against politicians, highlighting that despite multiple Supreme Court directives, 42% of sitting Lok Sabha members still face criminal cases, some pending for over 30 years.
Hansaria cited major challenges, including:
- Special MP/MLA courts handling other matters
- Frequent adjournments
- Lack of strict procedural enforcement
He proposed that non-bailable warrants be issued if an accused fails to appear twice consecutively. However, Justice Manmohan questioned whether these delays were consistent across states, noting that in Delhi, MP/MLA courts often conclude hearings quickly due to light case listings. The Court ordered a state-wise study on case backlogs and judicial efficiency.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh raised concerns about convicted politicians returning to public office, arguing that allowing individuals convicted of heinous crimes to re-enter politics undermines democracy.
“Our democracy has matured over 75 years, yet 46-48% of elected representatives face serious charges, including rape and murder. Parliament could not have intended such individuals to govern,”
Singh contended.
He also criticized political parties for repeatedly fielding candidates with criminal records, dismissing their claim that these individuals are “social workers falsely accused.”
The Bench reiterated that a three-judge panel had already ruled on the expeditious trial of lawmakers in a November 9, 2023 judgment, making it inappropriate for the current bench to revisit the matter. However, the Court will continue examining the constitutional validity of Sections 8 and 9 of the RP Act, 1951, which govern political disqualifications upon conviction.
The Union of India and the Election Commission have been asked to submit their responses, failing which the Court may decide the matter without government input.
The case has been listed for hearing in three weeks, where the Court is expected to deliberate on:
- The constitutionality of Sections 8 and 9 of the RP Act
- The broader implications of criminal convictions on political participation
Previously, in 2023, Hansaria informed the Court that the current six-year disqualification period after a convict’s release lacks a clear rationale and violates Article 14 of the Constitution. He proposed a lifetime ban for convicted politicians, arguing:
“Lawmakers must be held to a higher moral standard than ordinary public servants. Parliamentarians and legislators represent the sovereign will of the people, and once found guilty of an offense involving moral turpitude, they should be permanently disqualified. Limiting disqualification duration violates the equality clause enshrined in Article 14.”
Hansaria’s nineteenth report was filed in response to the Apex Court’s direction in Upadhyay’s PIL, which seeks a lifetime ban on convicted individuals from the legislature, executive, and judiciary, along with adequate infrastructure for Special Courts to resolve criminal cases involving public officials within one year.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 699/2016; Diary No. 29079/2016]
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE