NEW DELHI: Highlighting the politician-police nexus which impeded speedy trials, two high courts on Wednesday complained to the Supreme Court that reluctance of state police to execute arrest warrants for production of accused sitting/former MPs and MLAs before the trial court was a factor stalling proceedings.
Senior advocate P N Ravindran, appearing for Kerala High Court told a bench of Justices N V Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose that arrest warrants were not being executed by the police, which hindered courts from proceeding with the trial without the accused legislators being produced. Appearing for Calcutta HC, advocate Kunal Chatterji too aired similar grievances against the West Bengal police.
The bench frowned at Kerala government counsel G Prakash for contesting the HC's report complaining against the state police for non-execution of arrest warrants. The Justice Ramana-led bench said, "Have you seen the report of the HC? Which HC will mention a falsehood in its report? You have to show that your police are working to execute court orders." A chastised Kerala government promised to give priority to execution of arrest warrants in connection with trials pending against politicians.
The West Bengal government too faced displeasure from the SC, which said, "Is it not the duty of the state to execute warrants issued by a court? You heard what the counsel for the HC said." The state’s counsel Abhishek Manchanda promised to file a detailed affidavit.
After noting that 23 HCs had accepted the SC direction for setting up designated courts to expedite trials in criminal cases pending against sitting/former MPs and MLAs for decades, the bench referred to Madras HC's report, which said it would be unconstitutional to set up exclusive special courts for trial of politicians and sought restoration of status quo ante.
The HC has decided to revoke its 2018 consent to the Tamil Nadu government for setting up special courts for speedy trial of criminal cases against politicians, saying it had then "tripped and fell into error" by agreeing with the Telangana model for expeditious trial of legislators.
The bench said, "The process for expediting trial in criminal cases against sitting and former legislators started in 2016. Except Madras HC, no other HC has objected to setting up of designated/special courts. The objective is to expedite the trial. The SC has given freedom to HCs to do it whichever way they want. If Madras HC has tripped and fell in error, it is for them to correct the mistake. Because of the mistake committed by one HC, the process that has been taking shape over the years cannot be stopped." It said it would pass orders on further directions on this issue soon.
Appearing for petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay, senior advocate Gopal Shankaranarayanan told the bench that the SC in 'Public Interest Foundation' judgment of 2016 had said trial in criminal cases against sitting legislators should be completed in one year. Upadhyay had filed the PIL in 2017 when no action towards implementation of the SC judgment was taken. He also supported amicus curiae Vijay Hansaria who said the SC had ruled in many cases that if a trial was stayed for more than six months, it should be automatically vacated if there was no reiteration of the stay in between.