The Bombay High Court expressed dissatisfaction on Monday with the sluggish progress of trials involving Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) in Maharashtra, Goa, and the Union Territory of Daman and Diu. The court directed special courts to hold daily hearings to hasten the resolution of these cases.
During a hearing on a suo motu petition regarding the prompt disposal of cases against elected officials, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice NJ Jamadar reviewed a comprehensive list of current and former MPs and MLAs provided by Public Prosecutor Mankunwar Deshmukh. The court noted various delays such as absent witnesses, non-appearance of accused individuals, and trials being halted due to stays issued by the High Court. It urged the Public Prosecutor to file applications to lift any stays hindering case progress.
The bench observed frequent postponements in the status updates of the cases, including notes like “Not heard,” “Nil,” and “evidence part heard.” It pointed out instances where charges had not been framed despite the appointment of Special Public Prosecutors, suggesting that assigning multiple cases to one prosecutor could contribute to delays.
Furthermore, discrepancies were highlighted in the number of pending cases, with the current list indicating 398 cases while previous submissions mentioned a higher count of 480–515 cases. Consequently, the bench directed the High Court registry to obtain accurate reports from district principal judges. Trial courts were instructed to furnish detailed information on each case, including the trial stage and the number of witnesses involved.
Reiterating the Supreme Court’s directive to conclude trials against MPs and MLAs within one year, the bench instructed presiding officers to inform counsels about these guidelines and discourage unnecessary adjournments, citing Section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Emphasizing the importance of expeditious justice, the court mandated that day-to-day trials align with the Supreme Court’s mandate and emphasized that special courts were established specifically to prevent unwarranted delays in cases involving elected officials.