“How many things have we accelerated? There are special courts for MLAs, the POCSO courts, Mahila courts. Then the other courts are overloaded. Why should we micromanage everything?” the bank noted.
New Delhi,UPDATED: 31 Oct 2022 19:40 IST
The SC bench said that every state has a CBI court to deal with such special cases and nothing else.
By Srishti Ojha: The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a petition asking the Center, states and UTs to set up special anti-corruption courts in each district to decide cases involving corruption and other economic crimes.
The petition also requested directions regarding a speedy process of cases filed under the Money Laundering Prevention Act (PMLA) and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
ALSO READ | 500 cr in bribe in 16 months: how the arrest of an IAS officer exposed massive corruption in Chhattisgarh
A bench of India’s Chief Justice UU Lalit, Judge Ravindra Bhat and Judge Bela Trivedi verbally noted that the courts do not micro-manage everything.
“How many things have we accelerated? There are special courts for MLAs, the POCSO courts, Mahila courts. Then the other courts are overloaded. Why should we micromanage everything?” Judge Bhat asked.
Senior lawyer Vijay Hansaria, acting for the petitioner, argued that there is an increased interest in financial crime cases.
The bank said special court judges are often unavailable to hear other cases, which does not help reduce dependence.
“In every state, there are CBI courts that don’t get any other work. CBI cases take a lot of time, which means those judges are on the job most of the time. At the same time, those judges are not available to do other work, which can also reduce dependency. If we create something like this now, the same thing will happen,” Judge Bhat said.
ALSO READ | CBI to reply to ex-Maharashtra minister Anil Deshmukh’s bail plea on October 14 in Rs 100 crore corruption case
In response to counsel’s comments that investigative agencies take the time to file charges and mandates under the acts are not followed, the bank asked for concrete examples of cases where someone wanted to list their cases and the same was not done. .
However, the senior counsel said the data was not in the public domain.
“If investigative bodies take the time to file charges, what does that have to do with the courts? Someone should come up with empirical studies instead of filing such petitions,” Justice Bhat noted.
The court then allowed the petitioner to withdraw his case.
The present petition argues that as a result of long pending and ineffective anti-corruption laws, even after 73 years of independence and 70 years after becoming a socialist secular democratic republic, none of the districts are free from black money-related matters, benami -ownership, disproportionate assets, bribery, etc., and other similar economic crimes.
The petition filed by lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay also pointed out that due to long dependency and weak anti-corruption laws, India ranks 80th in the Corruption Perception Index.