HON’BLE MR.MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN WP No.16154 of 2020 Suo Motu Writ Petition

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.11.2025
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR.MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN WP No.16154 of 2020
Suo Motu
Writ Petition
Petitioner(s)
Vs
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Chief Secretary, Fort St. George,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. and 4 Others
Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s):
Suo Motu – Writ Petition
Mr.V.Vijay Shankar For The Petitioner.
For Respondent(s):
Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar,
State Government Pleader Assisted By
Mr.T.K.Saravanan,
Additional Public Prosecutor, For R1 To R4.
Mr.R.Muniyapparaj,
Additional Public Prosecutor For R5.
Mr.Srinath Sridevan,
Senior Counsel (amicus Curiae).
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon’ble Chief Justice)
Learned Amicus Curiae would bring to the notice of this Court that as on 30.09.2025, there are as many as 216 criminal cases pending against sitting / former MPs and MLAs in the State of Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of Puducherry. To be precise, in Tamil Nadu, there are 193 cases pending; whereas in Puducherry, 23 cases
are still pending.
2. We have gone through the other details with regard to the year in which the criminal cases were instituted and also the present status. There are many old cases where trial has not been concluded and has remained pending at various stages. One of the reasons for pendency of trial, as stated in the report, is that interim orders have been passed by higher courts, due to which, the trial is not proceeding
further.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the High Court is directed to submit a complete list of all those cases relating to MPs and MLAs where interim order has been granted by the High Court. The list
should be submitted within two weeks.
4. The following directions are issued to the concerned trial
Courts dealing with MPs/MLAs cases:
(i) All cases where stay has not been granted by the higher courts, the Trial Courts
are directed to expedite the trial;
(ii) Cases which are pending for more than five years are required to be expedited. Unnecessary adjournments sought by any side
should not be granted;
(iii) Cases where charge sheet has been filed but charges have not been framed, the concerned trial court shall take up those cases on high priority and ensure that charges are framed at the earliest and cases are not repeatedly adjourned from time to time only for the purpose of framing of charges. If it is
found that only in the name of framing of
charges, several adjournments have been
granted to the parties, a strict view of the
same would be taken by this Court.
(iv) Where charges have been framed, it
has to be ensured that evidence is also concluded at the earliest. Once a witness appears in Court, no adjournment shall be granted and the witness shall have to be
examined.
(v) All attempts should be made to
conclude the trial at the earliest.
5. Learned Amicus Curiae also pointed out some other aspects
relating to availability of infrastructure facility. He would highlight that though digital infrastructure and other kind of infrastructure have been
made available, whether they are sufficient or not has not been
indicated.
6. The Registrar General shall obtain through IT Cell, comments/ views of each of the Courts dealing with MPs/MLA matters whether there is any gap in the infrastructure facility which is coming in the way of expeditious trial of pending cases.
7. For the purposes of issuing appropriate directions in those cases where trial has remained pending because of the interim order
passed by the High Court, these cases be listed after two weeks.
8. List on 25.11.2025.
(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ.) (G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.)
11.11.2025
TAR