<p>The Union government has sought an urgent hearing in the Supreme Court on a batch of over 40 petitions including one by Karnataka Energy Minister D K Shivakumar as the trial in those corruption cases has remained stayed. All those petitions raised a question of law, that is, if the High Courts can stay proceedings in cases initiated under the Prevention of Corruption Act despite a statutory bar.<br /> <br />Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar, in a recent hearing, submitted before a bench presided over by Justice Madan B Lokur that the matter is required to be put before a three-judge bench.<br /> <br />The bench, that also comprised Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Deepak Gupta, however, directed the registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice for constituting a three-judge bench. The bench headed by Justice Lokur noted that they were sitting in three-judge combination only for a day and it was difficult to conclude the hearing on the date itself.<br /> <br />The court's order came as Kumar submitted, “there is an urgency in these matters because a large number of trials have stayed”.<br /> <br />The petitions, pending since 2013, sought an interpretation of Section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The provision stated that no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any ground. Neither should any court exercise the power of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings.<br /> <br />The issue for consideration before the apex court is if the high court can entertain petitions under Article 226 (writ jurisdiction) of the Constitution and under Section 482 (inherent power) of the Criminal Procedure Code and stay the proceedings in the corruption cases.<br /> <br />The question for adjudication also included if the framing of charges is an interlocutory order or not and if the same is open to revision by the HC. The case against Shivakumar pertained to land de-notification.<br /></p>
<p>The Union government has sought an urgent hearing in the Supreme Court on a batch of over 40 petitions including one by Karnataka Energy Minister D K Shivakumar as the trial in those corruption cases has remained stayed. All those petitions raised a question of law, that is, if the High Courts can stay proceedings in cases initiated under the Prevention of Corruption Act despite a statutory bar.<br /> <br />Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar, in a recent hearing, submitted before a bench presided over by Justice Madan B Lokur that the matter is required to be put before a three-judge bench.<br /> <br />The bench, that also comprised Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Deepak Gupta, however, directed the registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice for constituting a three-judge bench. The bench headed by Justice Lokur noted that they were sitting in three-judge combination only for a day and it was difficult to conclude the hearing on the date itself.<br /> <br />The court's order came as Kumar submitted, “there is an urgency in these matters because a large number of trials have stayed”.<br /> <br />The petitions, pending since 2013, sought an interpretation of Section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The provision stated that no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any ground. Neither should any court exercise the power of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings.<br /> <br />The issue for consideration before the apex court is if the high court can entertain petitions under Article 226 (writ jurisdiction) of the Constitution and under Section 482 (inherent power) of the Criminal Procedure Code and stay the proceedings in the corruption cases.<br /> <br />The question for adjudication also included if the framing of charges is an interlocutory order or not and if the same is open to revision by the HC. The case against Shivakumar pertained to land de-notification.<br /></p>
