<p>The Supreme Court’s order that “no prosecution against a sitting or former MP/MLA shall be withdrawn without the leave of the high court” is a welcome step to check the abuse of power by governments, which means politicians, to keep their own kind above the law. There are hundreds of criminal cases against elected representatives, including ministers, MLAs and MPs, and these are regularly withdrawn by governments for no valid reason. The procedure for withdrawal of cases is not followed in cases against politicians. The court’s order curtails the power of state prosecutors and bars them from withdrawing criminal cases against lawmakers without prior sanction from high courts. The three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice NV Ramana, has also said that the “courts are duty-bound to assess whether a prima facie case exists or not’’ and they would be justified in scrutinising the nature and gravity of the offence. This is an affirmation of public interest as opposed to political and personal interests that are often in play behind the withdrawal of cases.</p>.<p>There have been cases of mass withdrawal of cases against legislators. Cases against UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and others were withdrawn by the state government headed by Yogi himself. The Karnataka government had last year decided to withdraw cases against a number of legislators. In a slightly different context, the Kerala government sought to withdraw cases against some MLAs who resorted to violence in the state Assembly. The idea behind all these decisions is to protect politicians from the consequences of their criminal actions. The argument often put forward is that the cases are politically motivated. But it is for a court to decide whether they are motivated and whether there is evidence of wrongdoing. Governments cannot assume the role of judges.</p>.<p>The court also said that trial judges presiding over such cases should continue in their posts. This is because governments have resorted to the expedient practice of transfer of such judges when they resist political interference and refuse to be pliant. It has pulled up the CBI for failing to submit a status report on the details of cases the agency is pursuing against elected representatives. The court has given it a “last chance” to do so. It also indicated that a special bench may be constituted to monitor and ensure conclusion of such cases within a year of charges being framed. The court had in the past also directed that such cases should be fast-tracked but this has not happened. The rule of law should be equally applicable to all citizens. There is no reason to give elected representatives special treatment.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court’s order that “no prosecution against a sitting or former MP/MLA shall be withdrawn without the leave of the high court” is a welcome step to check the abuse of power by governments, which means politicians, to keep their own kind above the law. There are hundreds of criminal cases against elected representatives, including ministers, MLAs and MPs, and these are regularly withdrawn by governments for no valid reason. The procedure for withdrawal of cases is not followed in cases against politicians. The court’s order curtails the power of state prosecutors and bars them from withdrawing criminal cases against lawmakers without prior sanction from high courts. The three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice NV Ramana, has also said that the “courts are duty-bound to assess whether a prima facie case exists or not’’ and they would be justified in scrutinising the nature and gravity of the offence. This is an affirmation of public interest as opposed to political and personal interests that are often in play behind the withdrawal of cases.</p>.<p>There have been cases of mass withdrawal of cases against legislators. Cases against UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and others were withdrawn by the state government headed by Yogi himself. The Karnataka government had last year decided to withdraw cases against a number of legislators. In a slightly different context, the Kerala government sought to withdraw cases against some MLAs who resorted to violence in the state Assembly. The idea behind all these decisions is to protect politicians from the consequences of their criminal actions. The argument often put forward is that the cases are politically motivated. But it is for a court to decide whether they are motivated and whether there is evidence of wrongdoing. Governments cannot assume the role of judges.</p>.<p>The court also said that trial judges presiding over such cases should continue in their posts. This is because governments have resorted to the expedient practice of transfer of such judges when they resist political interference and refuse to be pliant. It has pulled up the CBI for failing to submit a status report on the details of cases the agency is pursuing against elected representatives. The court has given it a “last chance” to do so. It also indicated that a special bench may be constituted to monitor and ensure conclusion of such cases within a year of charges being framed. The court had in the past also directed that such cases should be fast-tracked but this has not happened. The rule of law should be equally applicable to all citizens. There is no reason to give elected representatives special treatment.</p>
