scorecardresearch
Friday, March 29, 2024
Support Our Journalism
HomeJudiciary122 with ED, 163 with CBI — SC gets tally of criminal...

122 with ED, 163 with CBI — SC gets tally of criminal cases pending against MPs, MLAs for 10 yrs

A report submitted to Supreme Court Tuesday provides details of pending cases against MPs and MLAs filed by the CBI and ED.

Follow Us :
Text Size:

New Delhi: Criminal cases filed against sitting and former Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) by federal probe agencies such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED), as far back as a decade ago, are nowhere near conclusion, noted a report submitted to the Supreme Court Tuesday.

Based on the inputs by the two agencies, the report, prepared by senior advocate Vijay Hansaria and advocate Sneha Kalita on the top court’s direction, says most cases filed against the lawmakers a decade ago are either pending investigation or trial. The report has been accessed by ThePrint.

On 10 August, a bench led by Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana had asked the ED and the CBI to submit a status report on the cases filed and investigation undertaken in cases against MPs and MLAs while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) to fast-track disposal of criminal cases against current and former lawmakers.

While the ED investigates cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the CBI looks into corruption or heinous offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) such as murder and rape.

The Supreme Court is likely to consider the report, which also suggests measures to expedite the disposal of such matters, Wednesday.


Also read: Criminal cases against MPs & MLAs cannot be withdrawn without HC nod, rules Supreme Court


Details about CBI and ED cases pending trial or investigation

According to the data provided to Hansaria, a total of 51 cases registered by the ED against MPs — incumbent and former — are pending. Of these, 28 are pending investigation, two are still at the cognisance stage, which means a trial court is yet to take cognisance of the charge sheet filed in these cases, and charges are yet to be framed in 10.

Only four of the cases are pending trial, while three of them cannot proceed due to stay orders from high courts (in two of them) and the Supreme Court (in one). Three cases are pending appeal against either the acquittal or discharge order of trial courts, while the accused has expired in one.

The report further notes that a total of 71 cases have been filed against MLAs — incumbent and former — by the ED. Of these, 48 are under investigation while charges are being framed in 15.

Three of these cases are pending trial and three are under stay — two by high courts and one by SC. There is no information available on the remaining two cases.

Meanwhile, a total of 121 MPs and MLAs (former and incumbent) have CBI cases pending against them. Of these, 58 face a maximum punishment of life imprisonment and charges haven’t been framed in cases related to 45 lawmakers.

Fifty-one cases filed by the CBI against MPs are still being heard in courts. Of them, 14 involve current parliamentarians and 37, former.

Similarly, 112 cases naming MLAs — 34 against sitting and 78 against former — are also in the trial stage. The oldest CBI case pending is in Patna and was registered in 2000.

Apart from this, 17 cases against MPs and 17 against MLAs are still under a CBI probe where no charge sheet has been filed before any trial court. The oldest FIR registered in this batch of cases was in October 2013.

Inordinate delay in some cases

The report further illustrated examples of “inordinate delay” in the probes and hearings of cases.

For example, ED is still inquiring into cases involving MPs that were registered in 2013, 2014 and 2015. One out of five cases from 2011 is still pending trial, while the courts have not even framed charges in the remaining, the report states.

In some of these cases, the ED has also attached property worth crores, and delay in proceedings before the trial court is primarily on account of the agency approaching the courts a long time after the cases were registered.

The situation is similar with MLAs as well. Hansaria’s report reveals that the ED is still conducting inquiry into cases registered in 2012 and 2013.

In a case from 2011, in which provisional attachment orders worth Rs 2,790 crore were issued, the ED has failed to disclose the status of the trial, the report says. Provisional attachment orders are issued when the directorate seizes properties.

Similar instances of delay have also been highlighted in CBI cases. A murder case of 2009 is pending in Bhopal and is at the stage of prosecution evidence. Meanwhile, charges are yet to be framed in a 2007 case for an offence punishable with life imprisonment and is before the special CBI court in Lucknow.


Also read: 4,442 cases against MPs & MLAs still pending in courts across India, oldest dates back to 1983


Recommendations to accelerate cases

In his report, Hansaria included recommendations to conclude these cases swiftly.

He suggested that high courts must issue administrative instructions to hold day-to-day trials in the matters. He further noted the CBI should ensure that public prosecutors do not seek adjournment and witnesses are produced before court on the dates fixed.

Cases where trials have been withheld due to interim orders of the courts must proceed notwithstanding such directions, Hansaria said.

The senior counsel also proposed the constitution of a monitoring committee to be headed by a former judge of the apex court or a former high court chief justice to evaluate reasons for the delay in cases where investigation is incomplete and then issue appropriate directions to ensure early completion of the probe.

The other members of the committee, he said, should be a nominee from ED, CBI, a nominee of the Union home secretary and a judicial officer of the state. Hansaria added the committee must submit its status report regarding each case in a sealed cover to the top court within two months of its first sitting.

(Edited by Rachel John)


Also read: Why Justice Kureshi, who ruled against Shah, could lose out on SC stint despite seniority


 

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube, Telegram & WhatsApp

Support Our Journalism

India needs fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. ThePrint – with exceptional reporters, columnists and editors – is doing just that.

Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in India or overseas, you can take a paid subscription by clicking here.

Support Our Journalism

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular