Criminal cases of MPs/MLAs: 4266 cases still pending in 2026

The deeply alarming scenario of increasing number of lawbreakers entering legislatures as legislators led to the Supreme Court passing an order on December 14, 2017, directing the establishment of special courts for speedy trial of criminal cases involving serving and former members of parliament and members of legislative assemblies.

The court ordered the creation of 12 special courts as fast track courts (FTC) to hear cases against sitting and former MPs/MLAs in 10 states and union territories. However, the Federal Trade Commissions have failed to reduce the number of cases against current and former lawmakers, and large numbers of these cases have been pending for years, sometimes even decades. According to the amicus curiae brief in the case, senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, the time limit for the case has remained unchanged since 2018 despite the creation of the Federal Trade Commissions. The report submitted to the court on August 17 said that in 2018, there were 4,075 cases pending against sitting and former MPs/MLAs, while in July 2026 the number was 4,266.

“It is submitted that the problem is not limited only to the number of pending cases. What is much more significant is the length of pendency of the case and the repeated failure to bring the proceedings to their logical conclusion despite the orders of this Hon’ble Court,” the report said.

According to the report, at least 746 cases have been pending for more than 10 years, 1,092 have been pending for five to 10 years, 881 have been pending for three to five years and 1,488 cases have been pending for less than three years. In 2025, FTC MPs/MLAs decided 1,454 cases and 1,234 new cases were also registered. As many as 401 cases have been filed against sitting MPs and 1,393 against sitting MLAs. There are 461 pending cases against former MPs and 1,941 cases against former MLAs. A total of 1,220 cases are pending in special courts in Uttar Pradesh, 543 in Kerala, 373 in Bihar, 364 in Maharashtra and 330 in Odisha.

Supreme Court on December 14, 2017, ruling in the case Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of Indiaordered the creation of 12 special courts to hear cases involving current and former legislators. In directions issued for the next few years, the Supreme Court has said that these courts should give priority to offenses punishable with imprisonment for life followed by imprisonment of five years or more. The High Courts have been directed to set up special benches comprising the Chief Justice to monitor the proceedings.

“Special courts wear too many hats”

The Supreme Court also held that trial courts should not adjourn cases except for rare and compelling reasons and also directed the courts to grant benefits to witnesses under the Witness Protection Scheme 2018 without any specific declaration in this regard.

It was brought to the attention of the apex court that there are not enough courts hearing these cases and that the courts are not dealing with these cases.

“Special courts have too many restrictions. They hear many other cases besides MP/MLA cases. In my report to the court, I have stated that these special courts should only hear MP/MLA cases and only after these cases are disposed of, they should be assigned other cases,” Hansaria said. front line.

Hansaria also said that the High Courts, despite the directions of the Supreme Court, are not effectively monitoring the progress of MP/MLA cases. “The High Courts are not showing due diligence in monitoring the proceedings of these cases. There have been instances where the High Courts have delayed the hearing of a suo motu case which they have to register to monitor the MP/MLA cases,” he said.

Other reasons noted in the amicus curiae report include the failure of the accused to appear in court within the stipulated time frame and the presence of witnesses in the court is not ensured by the prosecution within the stipulated time frame. It was also noted that the trial courts have been liberal in granting adjournments, despite the Supreme Court’s direction that “The trial court shall not adjourn cases except for rare and compelling reasons.”

Retired Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court Govind Mathur highlighted the problem that accused legislators often approach the High Courts (under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS) to quash charges or challenge minor procedural orders, seeking stay orders that stall proceedings for years.

“I strongly believe that the High Courts should intervene very slowly in such cases. I have noticed that in the last few years the High Courts have been invoking this jurisdiction quite frequently. This should not be done regularly but in rare circumstances. If the High Courts, if for specific reasons, have to intervene in any such matter while pendency of a case is pending, then they should decide at least stay petitions within a fixed period of time, say 30-60 days. Even otherwise, early disposal of various criminal cases petitions are highly desirable,” Justice Mathur said. front line.

Criminalization of politics

About 700 cases are pending, according to the amicus curiae brief. He also highlighted the prosecution’s lack of diligence. In both cases, political influence is cited as a factor.

Justice Mathur observed that the investigative agencies are under the administrative control of the executive branch of the state and such subordination proves fatal to the cases of MP/MLA.

“Political bosses usually manage to move investigations slowly. The same goes for prosecutions. All of these create common bottlenecks, including delays in filing charges, slow execution of subpoenas or warrants, and a high incidence of hostility among key witnesses. Independent prosecution units and robust witness protection programs must be established to insulate trials from executive or political influence,” he said.

The report states that the extreme length of detention becomes important when the accused holds or has held a high-ranking position. “The legislator occupies a position of significant influence and authority, and by virtue of that position may have access to political, administrative and other institutional resources that are not normally available to the accused person.”

“Delay in such cases benefits the accused by weakening the prosecution’s case, impairing the memory of witnesses, making witnesses unavailable and, in many cases, frustrating the final judgment itself,” the statement said.

The report also suggested that cases pending for more than three years be reviewed daily until all witnesses have been interviewed, that non-bailable arrest warrants be issued for defendants who fail to appear at two consecutive hearings, and that prosecutors bring witnesses to trial.

At the heart of the push to create Federal Trade Commissions to handle criminal cases against current and former legislators is concern that the nation’s politics are increasingly dominated by criminal elements, reflected in the growing number of legislators facing criminal charges.

According to data compiled by the Association for Democratic Reforms based on affidavits of candidates for the Election Commission of India, in the Lok Sabha, 251 of the 543 members have reported criminal cases against them, of which 170 are serious criminal cases, that is, punishable by imprisonment for a term of 5 years or more.

In the Rajya Sabha, out of 233 members, criminal cases have been registered against 75, of which 40 are of a serious nature. In state assemblies, out of 4,111 MLAs, 2,098 criminal cases have been filed against them and 1,286 of these legislators have serious criminal cases pending against them.

Also, according to the amicus curiae report, criminal cases, including serious ones, have been filed against the chief ministers of 14 states.

With

The handling of cases against Members of Parliament and MLAs assumes greater significance in view of the inadequacy of offenders framing criminal laws. Various committees and expert groups, including the Law Commission of India and the ECI, have sought electoral law reform to deal with the growing criminalization of politics.

The Law Commission of India, in its 170th report on Electoral Law Reforms published in 1999, recommended disqualification of a legislator for raising charges related to certain election offenses or serious offenses punishable by life imprisonment.

The Election Commission of India (ECI), headed by the then Chief Election Commissioner T.S. Krishnamurthy, in her report on the proposed electoral reforms dated July 5, 2004, stated that the issue of criminalization of politics has been raised repeatedly by the Commission and lawbreakers have become legislators and move around under police protection.

Therefore, the ECI has recommended that persons accused of offenses punishable with imprisonment of five years or more should be disqualified from contesting elections once the charges are framed by a competent court.

The Supreme Court is currently hearing a petition challenging the validity of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act 1951, which limits the period of disqualification of a Member of Parliament or MLA following conviction to a period of six years from the date of the convict’s release. We are talking about a lifelong ban on convicted politicians from participating in elections or running for parliament or state legislature.

Meanwhile, the top court may have to take another close look at the reasons why cases against lawmakers are pending.

Justice Mathur said, “The huge delays in disposition of these cases send a message to voters that the judiciary is inadequate in holding powerful elites accountable, thereby weakening the general faith in democratic governance and the rule of law.”

Also read | What else is wrong with the Indian judicial system?

Also read | High Courts need to improve succession planning