Special Court Not Barred To Try Offences Against Person Who Ceased To Be MP/MLA At Time Of Commission Of Offence: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that Special MP/MLA Courts can try offences pending against sitting or former legislators and there is no bar for trial of a person who had ceased to be an MP or MLA, at the time of commission of the alleged offence.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed a plea moved by BJP leader Manjinder Singh Sirsa challenging an ACMM order rejecting his application seeking transfer or return of a complaint filed against him on account of lack of jurisdiction.

The issue in the matter was whether pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay case, the designated Special MP/MLA Court has the jurisdiction to try case against Sirsa, who had allegedly ceased to be an MLA at the time of committing the alleged offence.

Rejecting the plea, the court observed that Sirsa is a former MLA and the fact that he ceased to be an MLA at the time of commission of alleged offence cannot be a bar to his case being tried by the Special MP/MLA court.

Justice Sharma said that Sirsa's counsel failed to convince the court as to how his case, being tried expeditiously, can cause any prejudice to him.

“In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the order of the learned ACMM, and the holistic reading of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court points out that the Special Courts can try offences pending against sitting or former MPs/MLAs, and there is no specific bar for trial of a person who had ceased to be an MP/MLA, when he had allegedly committed an offence,” the court said.

The court upheld the impugned order and concurred with the ACMM's decision whereby it was observed that whether sitting legislator commits an offence or an offence is allegedly committed by a former legislator, a case can be tried by the Special MP/MLA Court.

Furthermore, the court said that it cannot go beyond the mandate of the Apex Court and that the directions issues in the Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay's case clearly refers to “former MPs/MLAs” without carving out any specific differentiation among “former MPs/MLAs.”

“Consequently, this Court lacks the jurisdiction to interpret the decision in a manner that deviates from the clear directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In other words, this Court cannot read something, in between the lines, which is neither the intent nor the content, finding or even obiter of the Hon'ble Apex Court,” the court said.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. R.K. Handoo, Mr. Yoginder Handoo, Mr. Aditya Chaudhary, Mr. Solanki and Ms. Medha Gaur, Advocates

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the State; Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Naginder Benipal, Mr. Sumit Mishra, Ms. Bharti Nayar Benipal, Mr. Naveen Chaudhary, Mr. Marithi Kambiri and Mr. Ankit Siwach, Advocates

Title: MANJINDER SINGH SIRSA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 30

Click Here To Read Order