<p>The Supreme Court has told the special courts, set up to try offences against former and sitting MPs and MLAs across the country, to provide protection to witnesses without any specific request by them, keeping in mind their vulnerability.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices N V Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose also directed the special courts to follow "in full rigor" its judgement in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited vs CBI, (2018), which stated that any stay granted on trial would automatically expire within a period of six months.</p>.<p>This judgement was reiterated on October 15, 2020 by a separate bench, which said, "Whatever stay has been granted by any court including the High Court automatically expires within a period of six months and unless extension is granted for good reason, as per our judgment, within the next six months, the trial court is, on the expiry of the first period of six months, to set a date for the trial and go ahead with the same."</p>.<p>The bench pointed out the court had already passed directions on September 16 with respect to vacation of stay that may have been granted by the high courts.</p>.<p>"In that order, we had directed the Chief Justices of the high courts to list the matters relating to the cases before an appropriate bench, and to decide on any issue relating to stay by keeping in view the principles laid down by this court," the bench said.</p>.<p>Besides, the court also directed no unnecessary adjournments should be granted to avoid undue delay, keeping in mind the public interest involved in these matters.</p>.<p>The court was dealing with a PIL by BJP leader and advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay for expediting the criminal cases against MPs and MLAs.</p>.<p>Amicus curiae, senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, along with advocate Sneha Kalita suggested that the requirement for the witnesses to make an application seeking protection should be waived off. He also said in certain states, cases have been pending for more than 25 years, so it was imperative to appoint nodal prosecution officers who would be responsible to ensure that arrest warrants were being executed, and accused were being produced regularly.</p>.<p>He also said the tenure of judicial officers dealing with such cases should be at least two years in order to ensure continuity.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court has told the special courts, set up to try offences against former and sitting MPs and MLAs across the country, to provide protection to witnesses without any specific request by them, keeping in mind their vulnerability.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices N V Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose also directed the special courts to follow "in full rigor" its judgement in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited vs CBI, (2018), which stated that any stay granted on trial would automatically expire within a period of six months.</p>.<p>This judgement was reiterated on October 15, 2020 by a separate bench, which said, "Whatever stay has been granted by any court including the High Court automatically expires within a period of six months and unless extension is granted for good reason, as per our judgment, within the next six months, the trial court is, on the expiry of the first period of six months, to set a date for the trial and go ahead with the same."</p>.<p>The bench pointed out the court had already passed directions on September 16 with respect to vacation of stay that may have been granted by the high courts.</p>.<p>"In that order, we had directed the Chief Justices of the high courts to list the matters relating to the cases before an appropriate bench, and to decide on any issue relating to stay by keeping in view the principles laid down by this court," the bench said.</p>.<p>Besides, the court also directed no unnecessary adjournments should be granted to avoid undue delay, keeping in mind the public interest involved in these matters.</p>.<p>The court was dealing with a PIL by BJP leader and advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay for expediting the criminal cases against MPs and MLAs.</p>.<p>Amicus curiae, senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, along with advocate Sneha Kalita suggested that the requirement for the witnesses to make an application seeking protection should be waived off. He also said in certain states, cases have been pending for more than 25 years, so it was imperative to appoint nodal prosecution officers who would be responsible to ensure that arrest warrants were being executed, and accused were being produced regularly.</p>.<p>He also said the tenure of judicial officers dealing with such cases should be at least two years in order to ensure continuity.</p>
