‘You have made so many PILs that we will have to form a separate bench,’ CJI tells BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay
During the hearing of a case today, Chief Justice NV Ramana (CJI Ramana) appeared in a light-hearted manner. “Your 18 petitions are pending. At this speed, we will have to make a special bench for you and ML Sharma,” he told BJP leader and lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay, who has filed a public interest litigation on several subjects. It is worth noting that lawyer Manohar Lal Sharma also keeps filing PILs continuously.
The matter was being heard in the court as to what level of judges should sit in the special courts set up in the states for speedy disposal of cases of MPs/MLAs. The special MP/MLA court has been constituted only on the orders of the Supreme Court. Ashwini Upadhyay is also the petitioner in this case. His demand is also pending that the convicted people should be permanently barred from contesting elections. The court also asked a question to the counsel of the Center on this. Meanwhile, the Chief Justice told Upadhyay that a separate bench may have to be formed to hear his case tomorrow.
Today the bench headed by Chief Justice was mainly hearing the application of Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan. It has been opposed in this application that only sessions judges sit in MP/MLA courts in Uttar Pradesh. Azam’s lawyer Kapil Sibal argued that the cases for which the trial goes before the magistrate level judge, his appeal lies in the sessions court. But in UP, the forum of appeal to MPs/MLAs has been snatched away.
Apart from the Chief Justice, the other two members of the bench, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Surya Kant also agreed that the opportunity of appeal under CrPC cannot be taken away from any accused. Sibal also argued that magistrates are also part of the special court in other states. Equality is not being treated in UP. Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the Centre, said it cannot be called discrimination against any one person. The same arrangement is there for all former or current MPs/MLAs. However, the judge was not convinced by this. The bench has reserved its decision on this issue.
