Constitutional Infirmity & Illegality Did Not Hit The Curb To Delay Hearings Against MPs And MLAs At Special Courts

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• “Special Courts scrutinizing cases with original jurisdiction vested upon Magistrate Court does not constitute illegality”, the Amicus Curiae reports to Supreme Court.
• The right to first appeal is not diminished by trying the case at the Court of Session. Instead, the appeal is directed to the Court of Session; it should be filed at the High Court of appropriate jurisdiction.
• Supervisory jurisdiction of Right of revision was addressed.
• The Supreme Court was suggested to grant directions to all High Courts to establish Session-level and Magistrate-level Special Courts in each district.
• The suggestions by amicus curiae have been made regarding defeating the delay in hearings against MLA and MPs. To defeat the need to consider such trials as primacy and the necessity of daily hearing until the cases are closed was urged.

CASE PROCEEDINGS

• A public interest litigation petition was filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar, Upadhyay. The judgment for the said petition was granted in 2017, in which the Supreme Court decided to defeat delay in hearing criminal actions filed against member/s of parliament and members of the legislative assembly. A special court at two different levels was decided to be established. The levels were Session and Magistrate levels.
• Accordingly, a Special Magistrate Court was proposed in Rampur, Uttar Pradesh. It was attended by a Member of Parliament, Azam Khan, and the leader of the Samajwadi Party. They challenged the jurisdiction of Session Court judges to hear a case against legislation or its representatives.
• While considering the writ petitionsrelated to above pleaAshwini Kumar Upadhyay V. Union of Indiaand the petition Tazheen Fatima V. Union of India & Ors,,The appointments for Amicus Curies was made.
• The case is being proceeded in front of a division bench led by Chief Justice NV Ramana and members Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice Surya Kant.
• The vital issue that has been taken into consideration is whether a session judge who is a District Judge Cadre Officer has judicial authority to hear a case that should be heard by a Magistrate.
• The other concern addressed was legality of proceeding with hearing when the preliminary examination as per Section 209 along with section 193 has not been carried out.
• The appointed amicus curies have produced the following suggestions in their 15th report relevant to the hearing;
• The appointed Amicus Curies are senior advocate Vijay Hansaria and for his assistance advocate Sneha Kalita.

QUESTIONS

• What are your thoughts on Special Courts on Session Level and Magistrate Level?
• Is the delay in hearing cases against MPs and MLAs necessary to address?
• Do Session Level Courts infringe jurisdiction by hearing cases originally directed to Magistrate Court?

Share your views in the comments section below.