Criminalisation of Politics: Why Special Courts Struggle to Deliver Speedy Trials

Context

An August 2026 report submitted to the Supreme Court highlighted that criminal cases involving sitting and former MPs and MLAs increased from 4,075 in 2018 to 4,266 by July 2026, despite the creation of special courts. The persistence of such cases raises concerns about judicial delays and the criminalisation of the political process.

Background

The Supreme Court, in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India (2017), directed the establishment of dedicated Fast Track Courts to accelerate trials involving elected representatives. The objective was to prevent prolonged criminal proceedings from undermining the credibility of democratic institutions.

However, the intended reduction in pendency has not materialised.

Extent of Pendency

• Around 1,838 cases have remained pending for more than five years, including 746 cases pending for over a decade.
• In 2025, special courts disposed of 1,454 cases, but 1,234 new cases were added, limiting the overall reduction.
• Pending cases include those involving 401 sitting MPs and 1,393 sitting MLAs, besides former legislators.
• 14 serving Chief Ministers are also reported to have pending criminal cases.
• Uttar Pradesh accounts for the largest share of pending cases with 1,220, followed by Kerala (543), Bihar (373), Maharashtra (364) and Odisha (330).

Criminalisation in the Current Legislative Landscape

According to data compiled by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR):

• In the 18th Lok Sabha, 251 of 543 MPs (46%) have declared criminal cases in their election affidavits, while 170 (31%) have declared serious criminal charges.
• Among Rajya Sabha members, 75 of 233 (33%) have declared criminal cases and 40 (18%) serious criminal charges.
• Across 4,111 sitting MLAs, 2,098 (51%) have declared criminal cases, including 1,286 (31%) facing serious criminal allegations.

These figures refer to declared cases or allegations, not convictions, and therefore should not be treated as proof of criminal guilt.

Why Are Special Courts Struggling?

1. Courts Are Not Always Exclusively Dedicated

Some designated courts continue to handle ordinary criminal matters alongside MP/MLA cases. This reduces the judicial time available for specialised trials and weakens the purpose of a fast-track mechanism.

2. Delays from High Court Proceedings

Accused persons can approach High Courts seeking quashing of proceedings or challenging interim orders. Where proceedings are stayed for extended periods, the trial court cannot make substantive progress.

3. Investigation and Prosecution Bottlenecks

Delays in filing chargesheets, serving summons and producing witnesses can substantially slow proceedings. Since policing and prosecution largely operate within the state administrative structure, concerns have been raised about ensuring institutional independence in politically sensitive cases.

4. Witness and Evidence Challenges

Long trials can weaken the prosecution as witnesses become unavailable or change their testimony, while documentary and other evidence may become harder to preserve. The influence associated with political office can further complicate the trial environment.

5. Repeated Adjournments

Frequent postponements, including those caused by non-appearance of accused persons or witnesses, can stretch proceedings over several years despite judicial directions favouring expeditious hearings.

6. Limited Monitoring

The effectiveness of High Court monitoring mechanisms has varied across jurisdictions. Inconsistent supervision can make it difficult to identify and address delays at the trial-court level.

Reform Debate

The issue also extends beyond judicial administration to electoral law.

The Law Commission’s 170th Report (1999) proposed disqualification from contesting elections upon framing of charges for specified serious offences. The Election Commission’s 2004 proposals similarly suggested restricting candidates facing charges for offences carrying imprisonment of five years or more.

Another issue concerns Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, particularly the duration of disqualification following conviction. The debate includes whether the existing period should be altered, with petitions before the Supreme Court seeking a lifetime electoral disqualification for convicted politicians.

Any such reform, however, involves balancing electoral participation, presumption of innocence, and the need to prevent convicted persons from continuing in public office.

Way Forward

• Fully dedicated courts: Special MP/MLA courts should have exclusive jurisdiction over such cases and conduct hearings on a continuous basis.
• Time-bound stay decisions: High Courts could prioritise applications seeking stays of legislator trials and ensure that interim orders do not result in indefinite suspension of proceedings.
• Independent prosecution mechanisms: Greater institutional autonomy for investigation and prosecution can help reduce executive interference in politically sensitive cases.
• Accountability for non-appearance: Courts should strictly enforce existing procedural mechanisms against accused legislators who repeatedly fail to attend hearings without sufficient justification.
• Priority to older cases: Cases pending for more than three years should receive continuous hearings, particularly where witness examination has already commenced.
• Transparent monitoring: High Courts can maintain updated, publicly accessible case-status dashboards to track pendency, stays and disposal of MP/MLA cases.

Conclusion

The continuing accumulation of criminal cases involving legislators shows that creating special courts alone cannot resolve trial delays. Dedicated judicial capacity, efficient investigation, restrained use of stays, effective monitoring and timely hearings are necessary to ensure that criminal proceedings involving elected representatives are resolved without compromising either due process or the rule of law.

Source : Front Line