Gauhati HC seeks report on 72 pending MP-MLA cases, notes roadmap for speedy trial

Staff Reporter

Guwahati: The Gauhati High Court recently issued a strong response to the long-pending cases against present and former MPs and MLAs in all courts in Assam, calling for a report against each of the cases from the concerned court, including the causes of delay. Another important development was the roadmap prepared by M. Phukan, Director of Prosecution, Assam, flagging reasons for such delays and suggesting measures for the speedy disposal of the cases, which the HC ordered to be kept on record for further deliberation.

During the instant hearing of the case (WP(C)(Suo Moto)/3/2020), the HC observed from the report submitted by the Registrar (Judicial) that in the Principal Seat of the Gauhati High Court, there are certain matters pending with dates fixed. However, the court found it disheartening to take note of that there are various proceedings pending for decades in the District Judiciary of Assam. In this context, reference was made to Sessions Case No. 95/2003 pending before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, as well as the Special Case No. 81/2004 pending before the Additional Court No. 3, CBI, Kamrup (M).

The list of the long pendency of criminal cases pertaining to sitting and former MPs and MLAs was also furnished to D. Nath, the Senior Government Advocate. It particularly noted that there are various proceedings pending at the stage of process return without execution before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M).

 The Court had earlier requested the Director of Prosecution, Assam, to provide a roadmap insofar as the prosecution of the matters pending before the different trial courts in Assam.

 Accordingly, M. Phukan, Director of Prosecution, Assam, had prepared a roadmap and flagged six reasons for such delay, i.e., frequent witness absences, summons not being served, process returned without execution, delays due to transfers of cases and re-assignments, non-availability of sanction orders, frequent adjournment by the accused legislature and delay in obtaining forensic reports.

 Phukan also proposed in the roadmap the measures to tackle the situation, which include the proposal for the establishment of five designated courts for trying the cases involving legislatures (ex and present), the appointment of Pairavi officers and collaboration with Indian Posts, a strict trial calendar and continuous hearings, a monitoring and accountability mechanism, the engagement of more special public prosecutors for each designated court, time-bound evidence collection and forensic reports, etc. The Court ordered that the copy of such roadmap be kept on record for further deliberation.

It was also observed that out of the 72 cases, a maximum of 25 cases are pending before the Additional CJM, Kamrup (M), 6 are before the Special Judge, CBI and NIA, and 4 are before the Additional District & Sessions Judge, No. 1, Kamrup (M). The oldest pending case relates to the year 2004, and it is seen that most of the cases, more particularly those pending in the district of Kamrup (M), are either in the stage of appearance or copy.

Regarding the position of the pending cases, the court asked the Registry to call for a report against each of the cases from the concerned court before whom such case is pending, the adjudication of which should include the following: The stage of the trial; the reason for delay; the conduct of the complainants; as to whether they are diligently pursuing the complaint cases by taking appropriate steps; whether proper steps for issuance of warrants/summons were taken by prosecution/complainant well ahead in time, i.e., before the date fixed for appearance under such warrant/summons; whether the authorities, upon whom the duty of serving/execution of summons was placed, reported back the status of such service well ahead of the date fixed under such summon/warrant; whether the prosecution/complainant/accused were diligent in bringing their witnesses, with a summary of dates of non production of witnesses; how the trial court proposes to dispose of such cases at the earliest.

The court also expected the Office of the Director of Prosecution to initiate measures so that the prosecuting agency takes appropriate steps for speedy trials. Towards that end, the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police of the respective districts shall lend necessary assistance to the Director of Prosecution or jurisdictional Deputy Director of Prosecutions in this regard.

The concerned authority in the state, including the Senior Superintendent of Police of the respective districts, shall coordinate as regards the production of prosecution witnesses on the date fixed, for securing service of summons upon the witnesses/accused in time, and ensure execution of the warrant issued by the courts for the appearance of the accused/witness in time.

At the end of the hearing, the Court ordered the matter to be listed on September 18, 2025, on which date the Registry is to ensure submission of such a report from the concerned Courts so that further direction can be issued for expeditious trial of the pending cases.

Also Read: Private tuition still has an important role in school education: Survey

Also Watch: