“Gauhati High Court Seeks Expedited Disposal of Pending Cases Involving MPs and MLAs”
Kiran Raj
The Gauhati High Court has directed judicial and administrative authorities to submit detailed reports explaining the prolonged pendency of cases involving Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) in Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. A Division Bench comprising Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury reviewed a status report submitted by the Registry and observed that while some progress had been made, several cases remained stalled for years due to procedural delays. The court stated, “From the above, it is apparent that significant progress has been made in the matter of disposal of cases pending in the Principal Seat involving MPs/MLAs since this suo-motu case was registered.”
Taking note of these delays, the court issued a series of directives aimed at expediting proceedings. The Bench instructed the Registry to obtain specific explanations for cases that had been pending for years due to non-appearance of accused persons, lack of evidence recording, and stay orders issued by the High Court. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on April 29, 2025.
The suo-motu writ petition concerns cases registered against MPs and MLAs in Assam and Arunachal Pradesh, many of which have been pending for years without substantial progress. The respondents in the matter include the States of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh, represented through their respective Chief Secretaries, Home Departments, and law enforcement heads.
A status report dated March 10, 2025, was submitted before the court pursuant to its order dated January 28, 2025. The report indicated that of the fifteen cases pending before the Principal Seat of the Gauhati High Court, seven had been disposed of, while the remaining eight were at an advanced stage of hearing. The court expressed confidence that these cases were likely to be resolved soon.
However, the report also highlighted a substantial number of cases in the district judiciary of Assam that had remained at a standstill due to non-appearance of the accused. Some of these cases had been pending for over a decade, with no significant movement in proceedings. The court observed, “From the report submitted by the Registry, it is not clear as to why these cases are pending for so long merely for ‘appearance’.” It further stated that if the delay was due to procedural lapses, such as the failure of complainants to take necessary steps, the courts should have taken appropriate measures to ensure progress.
The report listed multiple cases that had been pending for over five years due to non-appearance. The court also examined cases where proceedings had remained pending at the stage of evidence recording. Several cases, including Sessions Case No. 95/2003 (Dibrugarh), Sessions (LG) Case No. 17/2014 (Kamrup), and Spl. NIA Case No. 2/2012, had not progressed beyond this stage despite significant lapses of time.
After examining the status report, the court raised concerns over the substantial delays and lack of clarity regarding the reasons behind them. The Bench emphasized the need for judicial officers to ensure that cases involving public representatives proceed without undue delay.
Regarding cases stalled at the appearance stage, the court observed, “If it is really the case where the appearance of the accused could not be secured for any reason including the reason of failure on the part of the complainant to take steps for issuance of process, then also, it is not clear as to why consequential orders could not be passed by the Court in those matters.”
Similarly, in cases where evidence recording had not progressed, the court noted that the report did not provide any clear explanation. It stated, “There is no indication in the report dated 10-03-2025 as to why recording of evidence could not proceed further in those cases even after the lapse of a considerable amount of time.” The court directed the Registry to gather specific information from the respective courts regarding these delays.
Further, the Bench noted that some cases were held up due to stay orders issued by the High Court. To address this issue, the court directed, “We direct the Registry to prepare a list of all such cases involving MPs/MLAs where stay orders passed by the High Court are operating and place the same before the Hon’ble Chief Justice, on the administrative side, seeking approval to constitute a Special Bench or to list these matters before any Designated Bench, for being heard and disposed of expeditiously.”
In light of the concerns raised, the court issued the following directives to ensure timely disposal of the pending cases:
The Registry has been directed to obtain detailed reports from the relevant authorities explaining why several cases remain pending at the stage of accused persons’ appearances. The court questioned why procedural steps, such as issuing necessary orders for securing the accused’s presence, had not been taken. It stated, “Registry is, therefore, directed to call for specific report from the concerned authority indicating the reason as to why these cases could not progress further and also obtain information regarding the relevant orders that have been passed by the concerned court so as to deal with the situation.”
For cases pending at the evidence stage, the court instructed the Registry to ascertain the reasons behind the stagnation. The order specified, “Registry to, therefore, call for relevant information from the concerned authorities and prepare a report on this behalf also for placing the same before this Court on the next date fixed.”
Regarding cases affected by stay orders, the court directed the Registry to compile a comprehensive list of all such matters and submit it before the Chief Justice. The Bench stated, “We direct the Registry to prepare a list of all such cases involving MPs/ MLAs where stay orders passed by the High Court are operating and place the same before the Hon’ble Chief Justice, on the administrative side, seeking approval to constitute a Special Bench or to list these matters before any Designated Bench, for being heard and disposed of expeditiously.”
In the case of Arunachal Pradesh, where some matters have remained unresolved for nearly three decades, the court sought a report outlining the reasons for such prolonged delays. It also directed the Registry to obtain details regarding the measures taken by the respective presiding officers to expedite these cases. The order stated, “The report to also indicate as to what steps, if any, have been taken by the concerned Presiding Officers of those courts to expedite the disposal of these cases over the past several years.”
The matter has been scheduled for the next hearing on April 29, 2025, by which time the authorities are expected to submit their reports.
Advocates Representing the Parties
- Mr. T.J. Mahanta, Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. P. Mahanta, Amicus Curiae
- Mr. D. Mazumder, Additional Advocate General, Assam
- Mr. A. Baruah, Government Advocate, Mizoram
- Ms. M. Kechi, Additional Advocate General, Nagaland
- Mr. A. Chandran, Senior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh
Case Title: Designated Courts for MPs/MLAs v. State of Assam & Ors.
Neutral Citation: GAHC010133182020
Case Number: WP(C)(Suo Moto)/3/2020
Bench: Justice Suman Shyam, Justice Arun Dev Choudhury
[Read/Download order]
