JavaScript is not available.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday imposed hefty fines on eight political parties, including the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Congress, for not disclosing the details of criminal cases against their candidates. The eight political parties were held guilty of failing to comply with the Court's earlier directions on making criminal antecedents of election candidates public, during Bihar polls. The top court in its judgment today slapped a fine of Rs 1 Lakh each on BJP, Congress, JDU, RJD, LJP and CPI and Rs 5 Lakh on NCP and CPM for not making public their candidates' criminal cases ahead of the Bihar election in November.

Despite strict monitoring and directions, the number of pending cases against Members of Parliament and MLAs increased from 4,122 cases in December 2018 to 4,859 in September, 2020, the Supreme Court was informed on Tuesday.

Senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, appointed amicus curiae by the apex court to assist it in a PIL for fast-tracking criminal cases against lawmakers, flagged several reasons for increase in pendency such as state governments ordering withdrawal of cases, jurisdiction of special courts and fixed tenure of two years for judicial officers presiding the special courts for MPs and MLAs.

The amicus curiae's report, filed through advocate Sneha Kalita, said that in Bihar, which has been submitting monthly status reports, there were 557 cases in September 2020 and the figure increased to 582 cases in July 2021.

The 13th report by the amicus on pendency of cases against lawmakers was taken on record by a bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana and several directions were passed.

The report further said that despite express direction from the top court, “no report has been submitted by the Union of India, on the issue of status of pending cases with the Central Enforcement Agencies and on the funding of establishment of video conferencing facilities in the States”.  

Dealing with withdrawal of cases ordered by various state governments, Hansaria told the court that withdrawal of prosecution under section 321 CrPC is permissible in public interest and cannot be done for political consideration.

“Such application can be made in good faith, in the interest of public policy and justice and not to thwart or stifle the process of law,” he said, adding, “In view of the facts and submission made, this Court may be pleased to direct that no prosecution against a Member of Parliament and or Legislative Assembly/ Council shall be withdrawn without leave of the High Court...”

On fixed tenure, Hansaria said that during the last one year no effective trials had been conducted in view of the pandemic situation but with the improvement of ground situation, the Courts have started trials by recording evidence and hearing arguments.  

“It is submitted that to ensure expeditious disposal of the pending cases, this Court may be pleased to direct that the officers presiding over the Special Courts MP/MLS shall continue on their posts for a period of two years unless the post fall vacant on account of death, retirement,” the status report said.  

The amicus sought direction to the Director, CBI and Director, Enforcement Directorate to submit a status report of cases against MPs and MLAs/MLCs regarding stage of investigation and expected time for completion of the investigation and reasons for delay in the same. 

He also sought to know the details of cases pending for grant of sanctions for prosecution, if any and details of appointment of Nodal Prosecution Office in terms of the submissions recorded in orders dated September 19, 2020 and November 4, 2020.

“The Central Government may be directed to make necessary funds available for the purpose of establishment of ‘Safe and Secure Witness Examination Room’ in each court complex with availability of internet facility for the purpose of recording evidence of the witnesses through video conferencing,” the report said.

Hansaria said that each of the high courts shall send an estimate to the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India within one month and the Centre shall make the fund available within one month of the proposal received from the High Court.  

He said that this court may be pleased to direct that no prosecution shall be withdrawn under section 321 CrPC against a Member of Parliament or a Member of Legislative Assembly/ Council (sitting and former) without leave of the High Court.  

“To ensure expeditious disposal of the pending cases, this Court may be pleased to direct that the officers presiding over the Special Courts MP/MLA shall continue on their posts for a period of two years unless the post fall vacant on account of death, retirement etc,” it said.

A separate report has also been filed by the Enforcement Directorate saying that 122 sitting and former lawmakers are facing prosecution under Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

The 122 names include political leaders from various political parties including from DMK, Congress, National Conference, Indian National Lok Dal, and even ruling BJP leaders.

10 Main Points of  Supreme Court

1. The Congress, BJP and five more parties were fined ₹ 1 lakh each and the CPM and Nationalist Congress Party were fined ₹      5 lakh for not making public their candidates'    criminal cases ahead of the Bihar election in November.
2. Records of criminal cases have to be made public by parties within 48 hours of the candidate's selection, the Supreme Court      said in a big step to cleanse politics.
3. The court's verdict said 51 per cent of the winning candidates in Bihar have serious criminal cases against them like murder,      kidnapping and rape. It did acknowledge the    possibility of rivals implicating someone falsely as vendetta.
4. "Despite repeated appeals, political parties refuse to wake up from deep slumber," said the Supreme Court. "Political                   lawmakers will wake up soon and carry out major surgery    for weeding out the malignancy of criminalisation of politics,"
     the court noted in its order.
5. The Supreme Court's appeals had "fallen on deaf ears", said Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavi. "Though we want to do              something urgently, our hands are tied, we can't encroach    the domain of legislature," they remarked.
6. The Supreme Court warned that the parties, in future, must display the information on their websites. The Election                      Commission has been asked to create a mobile app that has    the information for voters to access easily.
7. To stop state governments from misusing their powers, the court also said criminal cases against MLAs or MPs cannot be           withdrawn without approval from High Courts.
8. The court was hearing petitions that call for suspending symbols of parties that had failed to disclose the criminal                        backgrounds of their candidates.
9. Petitions had asked for contempt against parties for not obeying the February 2020 order of the Supreme Court. In that order,      parties were ordered to publicise candidates'    records within 48 hours of their selection or at least two weeks before the first      date of filing nomination papers. Parties also had to explain why they chose such    candidates.
10.The CPM and NCP had given an unconditional apology to the Supreme Court after the Election Commission said it would          suspend their symbols.