Thread by @barandbench

(Special courts to try criminal cases against MP, MLAs )

A Justice NV Ramana led bench of the SupremeCourt to shortly hear a plea seeking seting up of Special Courts to try criminal cases of MPs and MLAs expeditiously.

Petition by @AshwiniBJP.

Yersterday, Criminal Rules Committee of the Madras HC expressed doubts over the validity of constituting Special Courts to try cases involving sitting and former MPs/MLAs on the S
top court's direction, as recorded in the 12th report of SC -appointed Amicus Curiae Vijay Hansaria

Hansaria has informed that the three-member Criminal Rules Committee of the Madras High Court, has opined

constitution of the Special Courts MP/MLA cannot be sustained on the judicial side in the light of the authoritative SC pronouncements:  State of WB vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar,

Hansaria: Please look at the September 10, 2020, order. None of the High Courts opposed. There are three types of cases.. death sentence cases, 7 years imprisonment and other cases

Hansaria: it also needs to be seen that cases against sitting legislators needs to be decided first and not the former ones.

Justice Ramana: why?

Hansaria: those who have pending cases are making laws for us. There is public interest involved here. Some of them are ministers

Hansaria: there needs to be an order do that all of this is uniformly followed

Hansaria: witness protection is also important with respect to the vulnerabilities faced by them. Trial cases have considered granting protection to witness without any application. So courts must decide on whether such protection be given irrespective of any application is made

SC: whatever directions we pass it must be followed. We saw there are thousands of witnesses. Is it possible to provide protection to all these witnesses

Hansaria: I am not saying they be given armed guards but let the trial court decide.

SC: show us our previous order

Hansaria: let the trial court consider and not wait for an application from the witnesses.

Justice Ramanan to Senior Adv Hansaria: Please go a little slow, we are old people.

#courtroomexchange

Hansaria: There are 165 cases in Bangalore but there is only one court. There are 700 to 800 witnesses who live in far flung areas. Karnataka HC must designate a court having regard to geographical area of occurrence and witness locations.

Hansaria: In West Bengal, there is one court in Barasat trying 154 cases. Same we ask more courts are designated to try such cases.

Hansaria: Madras HC has said there is 80 to 90 stay in defamation cases. But as per Asian redusrfacing verdict , all stay will be vacated automatically so the HC needs to look into that unless the court decides against it.

Justice Surya Kant: In Madhya Pradesh too there is one in Bhopal

Hansaria: but they have decided they are establishing in Indore, Gwalior and Jabalpur. Similarly In Odisha there are three and they are making two more

Hansaria: Now coming to Madras HC objection on the constitution of the Special MP MLA court. Govt of Tamil Nadu in consultation with Madras HC , a special court was established in Chennai. After this one was established in each district.

Hansaria: Now there was no question for the HC to venture into constitutionality of such courts

Justice Ramana: I have gone through the report, I dont think they are wrong. But let's see i will discuss with my brothers after the hearing.

Hansaria: we don't want to stop for some small mistake committed by Tamil Nadu because the report itself says they have erred.

Hansaria: I have substantiated how the Madras HC decision is not correct on law

SC: let's not side track we will deal with that later

Hansaria: the video conferencing issues is before the Chief Justice. But that is about video conferencing rules. Now all courts need witness examination room and video conferencing room. Let the Centre pay first instance and adjust the revenue sharing.

Hansaria: Its 10 months now into pandemic and the trial cannot be kept on hold

Justice NV Ramana: we expected centre to be here but they are in some other matter. (Asks for an affidavit from the Centre on this)

Senior Adv Gopal Sankaranarayanan: unless SC explicitly states in a clarification that stays will be vacated immediately then such cases will continue to crop up like Asian resurfacing and day to day hearing in the MP MLA case needs to start immediate.

Sankaranarayanan: the issue of disqualification under Section 8 need to be dealt separately.

Supreme court asks Karnataka HC for a detailed affidavit after it submits it has only one court.

Justice Ramana now pulls up Calcutta HC for stating that "cases are going on smoothly." SC informed that 130 cases pending with the oldest one from 1981

Counsel for Calcutta HC: it was about an illegal procession..

Adv Sneha Kalita: no charges have been framed in such cases

SC to Calcutta HC: "What is this report? Should we ask the Registrar General to appear before us?

Adv: Delay happening due to non execution of warrant

SC: This is not mentioned in report. Where is it?

Supreme Court asks Calcutta HC to monitor the report and and file a proper affidavit.

SC to WB : When the case next comes up and you don't describe the course of execution of warrants or production of witnesses, we'll take a very serious view. An affidavit must come on record by a senior officer in this court

SC: Have you seen the report of Kerala HC? The High Court is clearly saying State Govt not cooperating with court.

Kerala counsel: we will implement orders of this Court. It has been alleged we are not cooperating but we will look into it.

Sc seeks details in the next hearing

Counsel for Madras HC: report by the HC says it itself committed an error by constituting special courts.

SC: What is the point of bringing this to court after so many years? You had started one in each district

Adv: New Chief came and committee was formulated

Supreme Court looks at the report by Madras HC.

The report states that Govt. of Tamil Nadu in consultation with HC had objection to constitution of special courts to try Criminal cases against MP's MLA's.

SC to Madras counsel: We are not passing any orders. You bring it to your client's notice about our orders and that we have given liberty to High Courts to rectify whatever orders they want to pass

Madras HC given two weeks.