Govts should take HC nod before withdrawing cases against MPs, MLAs: Supreme Court

A bench headed by chief justice N.V. Ramana said: 'We are not against the withdrawal of cases if there is a malicious prosecution. But this needs to be examined by the judicial officer in the high court. If the high court agrees then the cases can be withdrawn'

The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that governments should take approval of the respective high court before withdrawing criminal cases filed against MPs/MLAs. The top court emphasized that there is nothing wrong in withdrawing cases of malicious prosecution, but the high court must examine such cases.

A bench headed by chief justice N.V. Ramana said: "We are not against the withdrawal of cases if there is a malicious prosecution. But this needs to be examined by the judicial officer in the high court. If the high court agrees then the cases can be withdrawn".

Senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, appointed amicus curiae in a 2016 petition filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeking direction to fast-tracking of criminal trials against sitting and former MPs/MLAs, has filed a report in the top court. He has been assisted by advocate Sneha Kalita in the matter.

The report said the state government has informed the amicus that 510 cases relating to Muzaffarnagar riots of 2013 were registered in five districts of Meerut zone against 6,869 accused. Out of these, in 175 cases, the chargesheet was filed, in 165 cases final reports were submitted, and 170 cases were expunged.

Also Read: 151 CBI cases pending against MPs/MLAs, 58 punishable with life imprisonment, SC told

"Thereafter 77 cases were withdrawn by the state government under Section 321 of CrPC. The Government Orders do not give any reasons for withdrawal of the case under Section 321 of CrPC. It merely states that the administration, after full consideration, has taken a decision to withdraw the particular case," said the report.

The amicus submitted that the 77 cases may be examined by the high court by exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of CrPC, in the light of the law laid down by the top court in the case of State of Kerala vs K. Ajith 2021.

On Wednesday, Hansaria contended that each case may have reasoned order. The bench also comprising justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Surya Kant said it cannot examine all the cases, and let them go to the high court. Hansaria submitted that the high court may be directed to issue administrative instructions to expedite the trial of pending cases on a day-to-day basis in terms of section 309 CrPC.

During the hearing, the Chief Justice drew a parallel between the problems faced by the judiciary and probe agencies like CBI or ED. He said just like us, probe agencies are suffering from lack of manpower, infrastructure. "We don't want to say anything about these agencies because we don't want to demoralise them, they are overburdened. Same with judges," noted the bench.

This story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed, agencies. Mid-day accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability, trustworthiness, reliability and data of the text. Mid-day management/mid-day.com reserves the sole right to alter, delete or remove (without notice) the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever.

"Exciting news! Mid-day is now on WhatsApp Channels Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!