The Supreme Court on Tuesday took stock of its two-year-old judgment that required all trial courts to wind up trial in heinous offences against MPs and MlAs within one year.
Dealing with a PIl that sought permanent disqualification of politicians convicted of criminal offences, a Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha asked a PIl petitioner Subhash Talwar, who claimed to be a public-spirited person on what data he had procured on the conviction rate of politicians subsequent to apex court decision of March 10, 2014.
With no answer forthcoming from the petitioner, the Bench asked Election Commission, which was party to the PIl, “We like to know what is the rate of conviction in cases involving persons in political life. There is already a mandamus (direction) issued by us two years ago. We want to know how effectively that mechanism has been executed as here the burden of executing the trial is on the judicial system.”
Talwar’s counsel senior advocate Krishnan Venugopal informed the court that at present he had no data on the rate of conviction and possible cases where trial is pending against politicians beyond one year. He suggested that the data should be available with the EC. The Bench remarked, “The Election Commission has taken a stand agreeing with you on disqualifying tainted MPs/MlAs. As part of that anxiety they (EC) should be having the figures.”
Clarifying that the information sought was to firm up the final decision to be pronounced on the issue before it, the Bench said, “The argument in this petition is for the need to set up special courts because trial is not taking place. You (petitioner) have shown that there is an increase in criminalisation of politics but there is no data with regard to pendency of criminal cases involving persons in political life, the reason for delay, and the number of years it has remained pending.”
The court evoked its March 2014 order that required trial courts to end cases against tainted politicians facing heinous charges expeditiously and no later than one year. In the event this deadline is not met, the concerned trial courts were required to report reasons to the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court who would then pass remedial orders.
Asking Venugopal what data was available since this order was passed, the Bench said, “This court has armed citizens with requisite armament (to fight criminalisation of politics). What have you done about itIJ”
The petitioner presented a report prepared by Association of Democratic Rights (ADR) that showed how in the present lok Sabha, 34 per cent of members (almost 182) face criminal charges of which 117 are those facing heinous charges. However, this data is based on the information provided by election candidate at the time of filing of nomination and there is no update on whether conviction in any offence took place.
The Election Commission informed the court that in most cases, the trial courts do not report convictions to poll panel as a result of which the tainted politician continues in office despite incurring disqualification.