Setting reasonable time can end delay in justice

The Supreme Court of India has raised a pertinent question regarding the Telangana Assembly Speaker’s delay in deciding on the disqualification of MLAs who defected from the party on whose ticket they were elected. The court sought clarification on what constitutes a reasonable time for such decisions.

Justice should not be delayed. The Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS), which has now approached the Supreme Court, previously poached several MLAs under the guise of a merger, with some even being appointed as ministers. Despite repeated appeals to the Speaker, no action was taken until the Assembly’s term ended. Ironically, the same BRS now seeks a swift resolution. This issue is not exclusive to the BRS; ruling parties across the country have exhibited similar behavior. A comparable scenario unfolded in Andhra Pradesh between 2019 and 2024 when the YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) was in power. Such actions expose the political parties’ double standards.

The Supreme Court, which has rightly questioned the reasonable time frame for the Speaker’s decision on disqualifications, should also turn its attention to high-profile cases that have been pending for years. More than a decade after Jagan Mohan Reddy’s arrest on charges of amassing disproportionate assets, 11 charge sheets have been filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and nine prosecution complaints by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), yet the trial has not commenced. Jagan has been out on bail since late 2013. The apex court must also determine a reasonable timeline for the completion of such trials. Numerous similar cases remain unresolved in courts across the country.

This issue gains significance in light of recent data on the criminalisation of politics presented to the Supreme Court. The data revealed that 251 out of 543 Lok Sabha MPs face criminal charges, with 4,732 criminal cases pending trial.

After two landmark judgments on electoral reforms—mandating the disclosure of assets and criminal antecedents and enforcing automatic disqualification on conviction beyond two years—Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan are now exploring a potential third reform: testing the constitutional validity of Sections 8 and 9 of the Representation of the People Act, which imposes a lifetime ban on convicted individuals from contesting elections.

Political parties, which frequently preach morality and constitutional values, must first ensure that convicted individuals are permanently barred from contesting elections. A convicted person is ineligible for any government post, yet politicians convicted of crimes face only a six-year disqualification before being allowed to return as lawmakers.

In many cases, trials are prolonged beyond a reasonable timeframe, allowing accused politicians to assume positions such as chief minister or union minister. Furthermore, many political figures evade court appearances by citing official commitments, and these exemptions continue indefinitely. Therefore, an urgent review by both the judiciary and political parties is necessary to prevent justice from being delayed. Just as Assembly Speakers should promptly decide on MLA disqualifications, courts must also establish a reasonable timeframe for the disposal of criminal cases.