Courts hearing cases against MPs/MLAs may grant witness protection sans specific application by witnesses: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court this week directed that trial courts dealing with criminal cases of former and sitting Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MPs and MLAs) may consider granting protection to witnesses without their making a specific application for the same..A three-judge Bench of Justices NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose passed the order while hearing a plea by BJP leader and Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay seeking establishment of special courts to try cases against MPs and MLAs..Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, who is serving as Amicus Curiae in the matter, had urged the Bench to examine the necessity of providing protection to witnesses who reside far away from the special courts..The Bench, agreeing to the request, ordered:"The Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, approved by this Court in the case of Mahender Chawla v. Union of India, (2019) should be strictly enforced by the Union and States and Union Territories. Keeping in mind the vulnerability of the witnesses in such cases, the Trial Court may consider granting protection under the said Scheme to witnesses without their making any specific application in this regard.".The Court further asked special courts to strictly abide by the 2018 order of Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited v. CBI, wherein it was stated that "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."In Asian Resurfacing, it was also held that in case no such extension is granted or applied for, the trial would automatically resume after the expiry of six months..In a bid to prevent undue delay in proceedings before the MP/MLA courts, the Apex Court also directed the courts dealing with matters of legislators to refrain from "granting unnecessary adjournments."."At the cost of repetition", the Bench also clarified that all the directions here apply to "both sitting and former legislators.".Amicus Curiae Hansaria had informed the Supreme Court that though video conferencing facilities are available in some courts, "same are not adequate to facilitate recording of evidence of witnesses."It was also submitted that most of the states had clarified they don't have the monetary resources to upgrade the infrastructure required to hold virtual hearings. In this regard, the Amicus had suggested that a direction be issued to the Central government to chip in with some financial help..No uniformity in setting up of Special Courts to try MPs/MLAs throughout the country: Amicus Curiae tells Supreme Court.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had been granted time on September 16 to apprise the Court about pending cases against legislators under the special acts and also about providing funding for the establishment of at least one video conferencing facility in every district..SG Mehta has now been given further time of a week to furnish response in this regard. .Hansaria suggested that a nodal prosecution officer be also appointed in every such Court. This officer would ensure that legislators are summoned and appear on dates prescribed, and that cases proceed in a proper manner..Regarding specific states, there was a conflict in the versions given by the counsel for the State of Kerala and that of the Kerala High Court, with the latter alleging that the State was not co-operating with execution of the criminal warrants. .The Supreme Court has now directed the counsel for the Kerala High Court to furnish a list of such warrants to the Director General of Police (DGP), Kerala and has asked the DGP to submit a response to the Court with respect to that list on the next date of the hearing The case will now be heard after three weeks..[Read order]