Holding

The Court held that High Courts must register suo‑motu cases and constitute special benches to monitor and ensure priority disposal of criminal cases against MPs and MLAs, subject to the detailed guidelines issued.

Summary

The Supreme Court entertained a public‑interest writ petition under Article 32 seeking the expeditious disposal of criminal cases pending against sitting and former Members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies. The petition also raised the constitutional validity of Section 8 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, which was not decided. After reviewing earlier Supreme Court orders, affidavits from the Union, State Governments and High Courts, and a detailed data set showing over 5,000 pending cases, the Court formulated comprehensive procedural guidelines. It directed each High Court to register a suo‑motu case titled “In Re: designated courts for MPs/MLAs”, to constitute a special bench, allocate designated courts, prioritize cases based on severity, limit adjournments, ensure infrastructure and technology, and publish district‑wise status on their websites. The Court also mandated regular reporting by Principal District and Sessions Judges and the handling of stay orders. The petition was disposed of with respect to the first prayer, and the directions were issued; the second prayer concerning Section 8 will be listed later.

Issues considered

Whether the Supreme Court can direct High Courts to set up special benches and suo‑motu proceedings for monitoring and expeditious disposal of criminal cases against elected legislators
What procedural mechanisms should be instituted to ensure priority trial of such cases
Whether Section 8 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 is constitutionally valid

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 321
Representation of Peoples Act, 1951s. 8(1), s. 8(2), s. 8(3)

Subjects

expeditious disposalcriminal casesMPsMLAssuo motu jurisdictionspecial benchpublic interest litigationRepresentation of Peoples Actjudicial monitoringhigh court supervision

Judgment

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 266 : 2023 INSC 991

CASE DETAILS

ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
(Writ Petition (C) No. 699 of 2016)
NOVEMBER 09, 2023
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI,
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA AND
MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]

HEADNOTES

Issue for consideration: Writ petition in the nature of public interest
sought expeditious disposal of criminal cases against elected members of
the Parliament and Legislative Assemblies.
Constitution of India – Art. 32 – Expeditious disposal of criminal
cases against elected members of the Parliament and Legislative
Assemblies – Directions issued:
Held: (i) Learned Chief Justices of the High Courts shall register a
suo-motu case with the title, “In Re: designated courts for MPs/MLAs” to
monitor early disposal of criminal cases pending against the members of
Parliament and Legislative Assemblies – The suo-motu case may be heard
by the Special Bench presided by the Learned Chief Justice or a bench
assigned by them; (ii) The Special Bench hearing the suo-motu case may
list the matter at regular intervals as is felt necessary – The High Court may
issue such orders and/or directions as are necessary for expeditious and
eﬀective disposal of the subject cases – The Special Bench may consider
calling upon the Advocate General or the Public Prosecutor to assist the
Court; (iii) The High Court may require the Principal District and Sessions
Judge to bear the responsibility of allocating the subject cases to such court
or courts as is considered appropriate and eﬀective – The High Court may
call upon the Principal District and Sessions Judge to send reports at such
intervals as it considers expedient; (iv) The designated courts shall give

266
ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA 267

priority: (1) ﬁrst to criminal cases against MP’s & MLA’s punishable with
death or life imprisonment then to (2) cases punishable with imprisonment
for 5 years or more, and then hear (3) other cases – The Trial Courts shall
not adjourn the cases except for rare and compelling reasons; (v) The
learned Chief Justices may list cases in which orders of stay of trial have
been passed before the Special Bench to ensure that appropriate orders,
including vacation of stay orders are passed to ensure commencement and
conclusion of trial; (vi) The Principal District and Sessions Judge shall
ensure suﬃcient infrastructure facility for the designated courts and also
enable it to adopt such technology as is expedient for eﬀective and eﬃcient
functioning; (vii) The High Courts shall create an independent tab on their
website providing district-wise information about the details of the year
of ﬁling, number of subject cases pending and stage of proceedings – We
make it clear that while monitoring the subject cases, the Special Bench
may pass such orders or give such additional directions as are necessary for
early disposal of the subject cases. [Para 20]

LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (2015) 11 SCC 433; All
India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC
673 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No.699 of
2016.
(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
Appearances:
Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Adv. (Amicus curiae), Ms. Sneha Kalita, Ms.
Kavya Jhawar, Advs.
Gopal Saankaranarayan, Sr. Adv., Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, Ashwani
Kumar Dubey, Rishabh Shukla, Vaibhav Tiwari, Ms. Tanya Srivastava,
Advs. for the Petitioner.
268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.

Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, K M Nataraj, Vikramjit Banerjee,
A.S.Gs., Amit Anand Tiwari, B.K. Satija, Tapesh Kumar Singh, A.A.Gs.,
Ms. Sonia Mathur, Ms. V Mohana, P. N. Ravindran, S. C. Verma, Anup
Rattan, Dr. Manish Singhvi, M. K. Maroria, Sr. Advs., K Parmeshwar,
Mohd Akhil, Mrs. Rajat Nair, Apoorv Kurup, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Pranav
Sachdeva, Balaji Srinivasan, Sahil Tagotra, Sidhant Kumar, Ms. Manyaa
Chandok, Ms. Abhivyakti Banerjee, Shiv Ram Sharma, T. G. Narayanan
Nair, Ms. Swathi H. Prasad, P. S. Sudheer, Mahesh Agarwal, Nishant Rao,
E. C. Agrawala, Ms. Astha Sharma, Srisatya Mohanty, Ms. Anju Thomas,
Sanjeev Kaushik, Ms. Mantika Haryani, Shreyas Awasthi, Himanshu
Chakravarty, Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Bhanu Mishra, Ms. Muskan Surana,
Ms. Anvita Dwivedi, Ms. Lihzu Shiney Konyak, Ms. K. Enatoli Sema,
Ms. Limayinla Jamir, Amit Kumar Singh, Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Prang
Newmai, Anupam Raina, Sunando Raha, Nishant Kumar, Ajay Pal, Kumar
Mihir, Ms. G. Indira, Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Anandh Kannan N.,
Rushab Aggarwal, Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi,
Astik Gupta, Ms. Riddhima J Aggarwal, Japnish Singh Bhatia, Aashish
Chojar, Ms. Alka Chojar, Shuvodeep Roy, Kabir Shankar Bose, Deepayan
Dutta, Saurabh Tripathi, Apoorv Kurup, Ms. Kirti Dadheech, Ms. Gauri
Goburdhun, Ms. Aparna Arun, Akhil Hasija, Shivansh Dwivedi, Abhishek
Atrey, Ravindra Lokhande, Ms. Vidyottma Jha, Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Gaurav
Agrawal, Raghvendra Kumar, Anand Kumar Dubey, Devvrat Singh, Sibo
Sankar Mishra, Aravindh S., Sumeer Sodhi, Yash Gupta, Baldev Singh,
Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Tavleen Singh, Ms. Vallabhi Shukla, Joginder Mann,
Divyansh Thakur, Bimlesh Kumar Singh, Kanwal Chaudhary, Ms. Niharika,
Ms. Hemantika Wahi, M/s. Gorkela Law Oﬃce, Abhimanue Shrestha, Nishe
Rajen Shonker, Mrs. Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, Abraham Mathew, Siddhesh
Shirish Kotwal, Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Ms. Manya Hasija, Tejasvi Gupta,
Pawan Upadhyay, T. Illayarasu, Tapesh Kumar Singh, Aditya Pratap Singh,
Prashant Bhardwaj, Priyanshu Malik, Naresh K. Sharma, Gaurav Sharma,
Shantanu Sagar, Vaibhav Jain, Prabhat Ranjan Raj, Sidharth Sarthi, Mrs.
Divya Mishra, Anil Kumar, Gunjesh Ranjan, Ms. Priyadarshni Priya, Gautam
Narayan, Ms. Asmita Singh, Ms. Enakshi Mukhopadhyay Siddhanta, Sovan
Siddhanta, Anil Shrivastav, V. N. Raghupathy, Manendra Pal Gupta, Md.
Apzal Ansari, Chirag M. Shroﬀ, Krishnam Mishra, Rajeev Kumar Dubey,
Ashiwan Mishra, Kamlendra Mishra, Santosh Krishnan, Ms. Deepshikha
ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA 269

Sansanwal, Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Ranjan Mukherjee, Pukhrambam Ramesh
Kumar, Karun Sharma, Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Sandeep Kumar Jha,
Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, Venkita Subramoniam T.R, Likhi Chand Bonsle,
Ms. Komal Mundhra, Ms. Anagha N. Sharma, Arjun Garg, Mrs. Anil
Katiyar, M/s. Arputham Aruna and Co, Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Sabarish
Subramanian, Ms. Devyani Gupta, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, C Kranthi Kumar,
Naman Dwivedi, Danish Saiﬁ, Ms. Tanvi Anand, Ms. Radhika Gautam,
Karan Bharihoke, Mahesh Thakur, Ms. K. V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, K.V.
Sreemuthin, Ms. Priyadarshini Priya, Saransh Kumar, Vishnu Jain, Shreekant
Neelappa Terdal, Abhinav Mukerji, Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Ms. Pratishtha Vij,
Mohit Prasad, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Satish Pandey, Akbar Ali, Manmohan
Sharma, Ms. Jay Jaimini Pandey, Ms. Sadiya Shakeel, Mrs. Lalita Gupta,
Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi, Harendra Kumar Sharma, Mukesh Kumar Verma,
Shah Syed Samadur Rahman, Abdul Qadir, Umang Tripathi, Manish Kumar
Tiwari, Prabhoo Dayal Tiwari, Anirudh Bankura, Dr. Naﬁs A.siddiqui,
Malak Manish Bhatt, Shailesh Madiyal, Sunny Choudhary, Sandeep
Sharma, Karan Bishnoi, Kunal Chatterji, Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Rohit
Bansal, Ms. Kshitij Singh, Sohhom Sau, Ms. Uttara Babbar, Ms. Sampriti
Baksi, Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, Nishant Sharma, Akshay Subhash
Jagtap, Swapnil Anil Walde, Kabir Dixit, P. V. Yogeswaran, Ashok Mathur,
Sameer Abhyankar, Ms. Vani Vandana Chhetri, Ms. Nishi Sangtani, Naman
Jain, Anand Dilip Landge, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha
Pande, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Anandh Kannan N.,
M/s. Plr Chambers And Co., Ms. Jesal Wahi, Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Arvind
Kumar Tripathi, Mrs. Shashi Pathak, Ms. Aswathi M.K., Shovan Mishra,
Samar Vijay Singh, Keshav Mittal, Ms. Sabarni Som, Mrs. Lakshmi Rao,
Ms. Vidhi Udayshankar, Ms. Sakshi Garg, Harshit Goel, Siddhant Singh,
Girish Chowdhary, Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Ms. Shreya Bansal, Braj Kishore
Mishra, Atanu Mukherjee, Sandeep Singh, Sanjay Kumar, Ajay Kumar
Pandey, Mimansak Bhardwaj, Narendra Kumar, Maibam Nabaghanashyam
Singh, Shakti K Pattanaik, Ms. Anjali Dhingra, Ms. Bipasa Tripathy, Ms.
Yagya Kalla, Mayank Dahiya, Ms. Sugandh Rathor, M. Bangaraswamy,
S. Shashank Reddy, Ms. Shubhangi Agarwal, Ms. Tanya, Dr. Arun Kumar
Yadav, Shobhit Jain, Aakash Nandolia, Bimlesh K. R. Singh, Advs. for the
Respondent.
Intervenor-in-person
270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.

JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT

JUDGMENT

DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI
1. This Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India,
in the nature of Public Interest, seeks two distinct reliefs. The ﬁrst prayer
relates to expeditious disposal of criminal cases against elected members
of the Parliament and Legislative Assemblies1. The second prayer relates
to the constitutional validity of Section 8 of the Representation of Peoples
Act, 1951. By this order, we dispose of this Writ Petition as regards the
ﬁrst prayer after formulating certain guidelines for expeditious disposal of
the subject cases. We have also requested the learned Chief Justices of the
respective High Courts to constitute a Special Bench to review and monitor
the progress of these cases from time to time.
2. A short reference to the orders passed by this Court from time to
time, aﬃdavits of the State Governments, and reports of the High Courts
as analyzed by the Amicus in his written submissions are necessary before
articulating the guidelines and disposing of the writ petition with appropriate
directions. These proceedings commenced with notices being issued to the
Union of India, State Governments and High Courts. At a later stage, this
Court also appointed Shri Vijay Hansaria, Ld. Senior Advocate as Amicus
Curiae. We place on record appreciation for his invaluable contribution and
assistance.
3. In fact, this is not the ﬁrst case in which the need for an expeditious
disposal of criminal cases against elected members of the Parliament and
Legislative Assemblies is examined. In Public Interest Foundation v. Union
of India2, this court held:
“10. We, accordingly, direct that in relation to sitting MPs and MLAs
who have charges framed against them for the oﬀences which are
speciﬁed in Sections 8(1), 8(2) and 8(3) of the RP Act, the trial shall be
concluded as speedily and expeditiously as may be possible and in no

1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘subject cases’.
2 (2015) 11 SCC 433
ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA 271
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI

case later than one year from the date of the framing of charge(s). In
such cases, as far as possible, the trial shall be conducted on a day-to-
day basis. If for some extraordinary circumstances the court concerned
is not being able to conclude the trial within one year from the date of
framing of charge(s), such court would submit the report to the Chief
Justice of the respective High Court indicating special reasons for not
adhering to the above time-limit and delay in conclusion of the trial.
In such situation, the Chief Justice may issue appropriate directions
to the court concerned extending the time for conclusion of the trial.”
4. At an early stage, this Court recorded the statement of the Ld.
Additional Solicitor General that these proceedings are not adversarial in
nature and that the Union would not be averse to setting up special courts for
expeditious trial and disposal of the subject cases. By order dated 01.11.2017,
this Court called upon the Union, States and the High Courts to respond to
the idea of setting up special courts and the ﬁnancial implications involved
in its implementation.
5. After gathering the necessary information, the Union ﬁled an
aﬃdavit as is evident from the order dated 14.12.2017, contemplating setting
up twelve special courts exercising jurisdiction over multiple states. By the
same order, the High Courts were called upon to identify and transfer the
subject cases to the special courts that were to be established. The Union
was also directed to bear the estimated expenditure of about Rs. 7.80 crores
for running these twelve special courts.
6. However, as the above-referred decision had policy and ﬁnancial
implications, after much deliberation, this Court reconsidered the matter
and accepted the suggestion of the Amicus. That is, instead of setting up
special courts, a speciﬁed court in each district, both at the sessions and
magistrate level, be identiﬁed and earmarked for prioritized hearing of the
subject cases. The Union, State Governments and High Courts were asked
to respond to the new suggestion.
7. On 04.12.2018, the High Courts were directed to examine the
matter and constitute as many sessions and magisterial courts within their
jurisdiction as is considered proper and expedient. By the same order, it was
also directed that the subject cases punishable with death/life against sitting
and former MPs/MLAs should be taken up on a priority basis, followed by
cases punishable with imprisonment up to 5 years or more. Thereafter, all
272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.

other criminal cases against sitting MPs/MLAs, followed by similar cases
against former MPs/MLAs were to be taken up. This order also suggested
that the designated courts will take up and hear the subject cases on a day-
to-day basis.
8. On 05.03.2020, the High Courts were directed to provide information
about the (i) the MP/MLA involved in a case, (ii) whether sitting or former,
(iii) date of FIR, (iv) oﬀence alleged, (v) date of ﬁling of charge sheet, (vi)
date of framing of charges, (vii) present status, (viii) stay of trial, if any by
the High Court, (ix) expected time of completion of trial, (x) name of the
court, and (xi) the district in which the case is ﬁled. The initial information
received from the High Courts related only to IPC oﬀences. In order to
have a comprehensive understanding of the subject cases, by an order dated
10.09.2020, this Court called for information about prosecution of MPs
and MLAs under special legislations. The High Courts compiled the said
information and submitted their reports to us in the form of aﬃdavits.
9. On the basis of the above information, a comprehensive protocol, in
the nature of guidelines for identiﬁcation of designated courts, the number of
such courts, the procedure and practice that they need to adopt and follow,
witness protection, etc. was prepared by the learned Amicus. These were
noted by this Court in the order dated 10.09.2020 and they are reproduced
hereinbelow for ready reference:
(i) Special Courts in every district for MPs/MLAs:-
a. Each High Court may be directed to assign/allocate criminal
cases involving former and sitting legislators to as many Sessions
Courts and Magisterial Courts as the respective High Courts may
consider proper, ﬁt and expedient having regard to the number
and nature of pending cases. Such decisions may be taken by the
High Courts within four weeks of the order.
b. The State Governments will issue necessary notiﬁcation in
terms of the recommendation of the High Court within two weeks
from the receipt of the recommendation.
c. Case records to be transferred expeditiously to the Special
Courts.
(ii) Practice Directions :-
ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA 273
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI

a. Special Courts will give priority to the trial of cases in the
following order:-
i. Oﬀences punishable with death/life imprisonment;
ii. Oﬀences punishable with imprisonment for 7 years or
more;
iii. Other oﬀences.
b.Cases involving sitting legislators to be given priority over
former legislators.
c. Forensic laboratories will give priority in furnishing the report
in respect of cases being tried by the Special Courts and will
submit all pending reports within one month.
d. State Governments/UTs will appoint/designate at least two
Special Public Prosecutors for prosecuting cases in the Special
Courts in consultation with District and Sessions Judge in the
concerned District.
e. No adjournment shall be granted except in rare and exceptional
circumstances and for reasons to be recorded.
f. The Superintendent of Police of respective Districts shall be
responsible to ensure production of accused persons before the
respective courts on the dates ﬁxed and the execution of NBWs
issued by the Courts.
g. The SHO of the concerned police station shall be personally
responsible for service of summons to the witnesses and their
appearance and deposition in the court.
h. Courts will use technology of video conferencing for
examination of witnesses and appearance of the accused persons,
to the extent possible.
(iii) Cases under stay :-
a. This Hon’ble Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt.
Ltd vs. CBI, 2018 (16) SCC 299, held as under:-
“If stay is granted, it should not normally be unconditional or
of indeﬁnite duration. Appropriate conditions may be imposed
274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.

so that the party in whose favour stay is granted is accountable
if court ﬁnally ﬁnds no merit in the matter and the other side
suﬀers loss and injustice. To give eﬀect to the legislative policy
and the mandate of Article 21 for speedy justice in criminal
cases, if stay is granted, matter should be taken on day-to-day
basis and concluded within two-three months. Where the matter
remains pending for longer period, the order of stay will stand
vacated on expiry of six months, unless extension is granted by a
speaking order showing extraordinary situation where continuing
stay was to be preferred to the ﬁnal disposal of trial by the trial
Court. This timeline is being ﬁxed in view of the fact that such
trials are expected to be concluded normally in one to two years.”
In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid case, trial
courts to proceed with the trial notwithstanding any stay granted
by the High Court unless fresh order is passed extending the stay
by recording reasons.
b. In the alternative, Registrar Generals may be directed to place
the matters involving MPs and MLAs before Hon’ble the Chief
Justice for appropriate orders for urgent listing of such cases.
(iv) Witness Protection :-
a. Witness protection in all such cases is essential having regard
to vulnerability of the witnesses and the inﬂuence exercised
by the legislators facing criminal trials. This Hon’ble Court
in the case of Mahender Chawla vs Union of India, 2018 (16)
SCC 299 has framed “Witness Protection Scheme, 2018” and
made it applicable to all the States till the enactment of suitable
legislation by the Parliament or State legislatures.
b. Trial Courts shall consider granting of protection under the
aforesaid scheme to all the witnesses, without any application
by the respective witnesses.
(v) Monitoring by High Courts
a. Each High Court shall register a Suo Moto case with the title
“In Re: Special Courts for MPs/MLAs” to monitor the progress
of cases pending in the State and ensure compliance of direction
of this Hon’ble Court.
ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA 275
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI

b. The writ petition, so registered shall be heard by a Division
Bench of the High Court to be constituted by the Chief Justice.
c. A Senior Advocate shall be appointed as Amicus Curiae.
d. The State shall be represented by the Advocate General or an
Additional Advocate General.
e. A senior Police Oﬃcer of the rank not below Inspector General
of Police shall be present in the Court in each hearing to furnish
requisite information, as and when required.
f. Each Special Court will send a monthly status report to the
High Court and the High Court, on examination of the same, will
issue necessary directions to ensure speedy disposal of cases.
g. The case shall be heard by the High Court at such interval as
may be necessary; however, at least once three months.”
10. After hearing the Union and State Governments, we sought the
opinion on the above referred suggestions along with an action plan for
rationalization of the special courts from the Chief Justices of the respective
High Courts3. This being an important order, the relevant portion is extracted
herein;
“16. With respect to increasing the number of Special Courts and
rationalizing the pending criminal cases, we deem it appropriate that,
before passing any speciﬁc direction in respect thereto, it would be
appropriate to direct the learned Chief Justice of each High Court to
formulate and submit an action plan for rationalization of the number
of Special Courts necessary, with respect to the following aspects:
a. Total number of pending cases in each district
b. Required number of proportionate Special Courts
c. Number of Courts that are currently available
d. Number of Judges and the subject categories of the cases
e. Tenure of the Judges to be designated

3 See order dated 16.09.2020.
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.

f. Number of cases to be assigned to each Judge
g. Expected time for disposal of the cases
h. Distance of the Courts to be designated
i. Adequacy of infrastructure
17. The learned Chief Justices while preparing the action plan
should also consider, in the event the trials are already ongoing in
an expeditious manner, whether transferring the same to a diﬀerent
Court would be necessary and appropriate.
18. The learned Chief Justices of the High Courts shall also designate
a Special Bench, comprising themselves and their designate, in order
to monitor the progress of these trials.
19. The learned Chief Justices are also requested to give their
comments on the other suggestions of the learned amicus, as extracted
by us in our order dated 10.09.2020 and this order. They are also
requested to send us additional suggestion, if any, for the purpose of
expedient disposal of pending criminal cases against legislators. The
action plan, with the comments and suggestions of the learned Chief
Justices of the High Courts, are to be sent to the Secretary General of
this Court, preferably within a week. A copy may also be sent to the
learned amicus curiae by way of e-mail.
20. We further request the learned Chief Justices of all the High
Courts to list forthwith all pending criminal cases involving sitting/
former legislators (MPs and MLAs), particularly those wherein a
stay has been granted, before an appropriate bench(es) comprising of
the learned Chief Justice and/or their designates. Upon being listed,
the Court must ﬁrst decide whether the stay granted, if any, should
continue, keeping in view the principles regarding the grant of stay
enshrined in the judgment of this Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road
Agency Private Limited v. CBI, (2018) 16 SCC 299. In the event that
a stay is considered necessary, the Court should hear the matter on
a day-to-day basis and dispose of the same expeditiously, preferably
within a period of two month, without any unnecessary adjournment.
It goes without saying that the Covid-19 condition should not be an
impediment to the compliance of this direction, as these matters could
be conveniently heard through video conferencing.”
ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA 277
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI

11. In continuation of the above referred order dated 16.09.2020,
further directions were issued and information was sought regarding – (a)
available infrastructural facilities4; (b) extension of witness protection as
provided in Mahender Chawla v. Union of India, (2019) 14 SCC 6155; (c)
orders withdrawing prosecution under section 321 Cr.P.C.6; and (d) transfer
of judicial oﬃcers7. The necessary information was provided through
aﬃdavits.
12. Present status on case pendency: A comprehensive picture of the
pending subject cases in various courts spread across the States and Union
Territories is made available to us. The following table evidences the number
of cases pending against MPs and MLAs in each State and Union Territory
as of December 2018, December 2021 and the latest being November 2022.
Sr. State/UT Case in Cases in Cases as in November 2022
No. Dec. Dec. Total More than Case load
2018 2021 cases 5 years per judge
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Andhra Pradesh 109 146 92 50 92

2. Arunachal Pradesh 6 16 4 1 Between 1
to 4
3. Assam 38 69 75 33 Between 0
to 2.5
4. Bihar 304 571 546 381 Average7.3
5. Chhattisgarh 24 12 10 2 Average1.1

6. Delhi 124 97 93 27 Average 16

7. Goa 15 12 19 5 Between 2
to 8
8. Gujarat 119 33 28 11 Between 1
to 3

4 order dated 06.10.2020.
5 order dated 04.11.2020.
6 order dated 10.08.2021.
7 order dated 10.08.2021 clariﬁed later by order dated 10.10.2021 and 12.07.2023
278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.

9. Haryana 35 46 48 18 Between 0
to 2
10. Himachal Pradesh 34 68 70 17 Between 1
to 19
11. Jharkhand 160 207 198 72 Between 1
to 37
12. Karnataka 161 150 221 61 Between13
to 156
13. Kerala 312 401 384 22 Between 0
to 59
14. Madhya Pradesh 168 260 329 51 Between
25
to 210
15. Maharashtra 303 470 482 169 Between 1
to 31
16. Manipur 12 4 10 1 Between 1
to 4
17. Meghalaya 3 5 4 4 Between 1
to 2
18. Mizoram 4 1 0 0 Not
applicable
19. Nagaland 1 0 0 0 Not
applicable
20. Orissa 331 360 454 323 Between 0
to 30
21. Punjab 34 74 91 16 Between 0
to 4
22. Rajasthan 46 56 57 21 Between 1
to 4
23. Sikkim 0 0 0 0 0
24. Tamil Nadu 321 328 260 60 Between 1
to 22
25. Telangana 99 50 17 4 Between 1
to 16
26. Tripura 16 0 0 0 Not
Applicable
ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA 279
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI

27. Uttar Pradesh 992 1339 1377 719 Av e r a g e
9.31
28. Uttarakhand 34 10 15 2 Not
furnished
29. West Bengal 269 136 244 23 Between 0
to 31
30. Andaman & Nicobar 0 0 0 0 Not
(U.T.) applicable
31. Chandigarh (U.T.) — 10 10 1 Between 0
to 5
32. Dadra & Nagar 2 0 0 0 Not
Haveli (U.T.) applicable
33. Jammu & 12 7 6 6 Not
Kashmir (U.T.) furnished
34. Ladakh (U.T.) — — — — —
35. Lakshadweep(U.T.) — — — — —
36. Puducherry (U.T.) 34 36 31 16 Between 1
to 12
Total 4122 4974 5175 2116

13. Analysis: The above referred table shows that there are as many as
5,175 subject cases pending as of November, 2022. Of these, cases that are
pending for more than 5 years are as many as 2,116, which ﬁgure is more
than 40% of such pendencies. This is a large number.
14. These cases have a direct bearing on our political democracy.
Hence, there is a compelling need to make every eﬀort to ensure that these
cases are taken up on priority and decided expeditiously. Conﬁdence and
trust of the constituency in their political representative, be it an MP or an
MLA, is necessary for an interactive, eﬃcient and eﬀective functioning of
a parliamentary democracy. However, such conﬁdence is diﬃcult to expect
when ﬁgures, as indicated in the above referred table, loom large in our polity.
15. In fact, there are no two views about the compelling need to take
up and dispose of the subject cases expeditiously. We have no doubt in our
mind that even the political representative, be it MP or an MLA, involved in
the prosecution would also seek a quick disposal of these cases. However, the
280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.

problem lies elsewhere. It seems systemic, perhaps institutional, and takes
within its sweep many factors including the method of adversarial litigation
that we have adopted. Yet, at every stage of the practice and procedure that
we adopt, there is scope for reform. It is in this context that we have earnestly
conducted and monitored this case for the last seven years.
16. Having analyzed the all India data on the pendency of subject cases
in States and Union Territories, we have at the outset noted a considerable
asymmetric disposition between states and even between districts within
a State, on factors that have a bearing on early disposal. This is evident
from the stark diﬀerence that exists in the actual number of pending cases
between States and even districts within States. There are also variations
in the availability of judges to decide the cases, the case load per judge, the
speed at which the cases are decided, the state of physical and technological
infrastructure, availability of prosecutors, etc. There is yet another aspect,
and this may not be amenable to data collection, but has a direct bearing on
our endeavor for an early disposal of these cases. The practice and procedure
prevalent in every court is distinct and is sometimes deep-rooted. There
are many factors, which may be historical, cultural, regional or linguistic,
that inﬂuence the work ethic in a court. This is where the role of the Bar
becomes important, and therefore, their participation becomes crucial. Once
we recognize the inextricable connection and interdependence of the Bar
and the Bench, the need to focus and address these issues comes to light.
At this stage, we are merely attempting to identify factors that must be
taken into account while making an accurate assessment for an eﬀective
and expeditious disposal of the subject cases.
17. Having analyzed the data and information available on record,
two conclusions emerged - ﬁrst, there are multiple factors that have a direct
bearing on the disposal of the subject cases, and second, there is substantial
variation from state to state, and district to district, with respect to each of
these factors. These conclusions – the plurality of considerations and their
asymmetry between State to State and even district to district, have a direct
bearing on the decision or a measure that we may adopt for early disposal
of the subject cases.
18. We have monitored these proceedings from 2017 onwards and
have examined the data and information brought to our notice by the High
Courts. We have also gone through the aﬃdavits ﬁled on behalf of the State
Governments which have shown equal concern and earnestness in ensuring
ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA 281
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI

early disposal of the subject cases. With the assistance of the learned Amicus,
we have formulated certain guidelines that will enable the completion
of investigation, smooth conduct of trial, removal of impediments and
conclusion of the subject cases at the earliest.
19. Having considered the matter in detail, we are of the opinion that
there exist multiple factors. Each of these inﬂuences early disposal of the
subject cases. This, coupled with their dissimilarity from State to State,
makes it diﬃcult for this Court to form a uniform or standard guideline
for trial courts across the length and breadth of this country to dispose of
the subject cases. We have gone through the aﬃdavits ﬁled by the High
Courts explaining the situation that exists within their jurisdiction. The
High Courts have been dealing with these issues on the judicial as well as
on the administrative side, and they are alive to the position that exists in
each of their district courts. Under Article 227, the High Courts are entrusted
with the power of superintendence over the district judiciary 8. We deem it
appropriate to leave it to the High Courts to evolve such method or apply
such measure that they deem expedient for an eﬀective monitoring of the
subject cases.
20. Having considered the matter in detail, we direct that:
(i) Learned Chief Justices of the High Courts shall register a suo-
motu case with the title, “In Re: designated courts for MPs/
MLAs” to monitor early disposal of criminal cases pending
against the members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies.
The suo-motu case may be heard by the Special Bench presided
by the Learned Chief Justice or a bench assigned by them.
(ii) The Special Bench hearing the suo-motu case may list the matter
at regular intervals as is felt necessary. The High Court may issue
such orders and/or directions as are necessary for expeditious
and eﬀective disposal of the subject cases. The Special Bench
may consider calling upon the Advocate General or the Public
Prosecutor to assist the Court.

8 Though Constitution uses the expression ‘subordinate’ to describe the district judiciary,
it is not to be understood in the literal sense. In fact, this Court in All India Judges
Association v. Union of India & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 673, has held that district
judiciary is a part of our basic structure.
282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.

(iii) The High Court may require the Principal District and Sessions
Judge to bear the responsibility of allocating the subject cases to
such court or courts as is considered appropriate and eﬀective.
The High Court may call upon the Principal District and Sessions
Judge to send reports at such intervals as it considers expedient.
(iv) The designated courts shall give priority:
(i) ﬁrst to criminal cases against MP’s & MLA’s punishable with
death or life imprisonment then to (ii) cases punishable with
imprisonment for 5 years or more, and then hear (iii) other cases.
The Trial Courts shall not adjourn the cases except for rare and
compelling reasons.
(v) The learned Chief Justices may list cases in which orders of stay
of trial have been passed before the Special Bench to ensure that
appropriate orders, including vacation of stay orders are passed
to ensure commencement and conclusion of trial.
(vi) The Principal District and Sessions Judge shall ensure suﬃcient
infrastructure facility for the designated courts and also enable it
to adopt such technology as is expedient for eﬀective and eﬃcient
functioning.
(vii) The High Courts shall create an independent tab on their website
providing district-wise information about the details of the year of
ﬁling, number of subject cases pending and stage of proceedings.
We make it clear that while monitoring the subject cases, the
Special Bench may pass such orders or give such additional
directions as are necessary for early disposal of the subject cases.
21. With these directions, we dispose of this Writ Petition with respect
to the ﬁrst prayer concerning the expeditious disposal of criminal cases
against elected members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies.
22. This Writ Petition will now be listed for hearing on the other issue
relating to the constitutional validity of Section 8 of the Representation of
Peoples Act, 1951. We also place on record our appreciation for the eﬀorts
taken by the learned Amicus Curiae.

Headnotes prepared by: Directions issued.
Ankit Gyan