Special Courts for MPs/MLAs
Indian Polity & Governance
- PYQs8
- Articles1
Background
These courts are a direct response to concerns about criminalization of politics and judicial pendency. UPSC examines their role, effectiveness, and implications for governance and electoral reforms.
Special Courts for MPs/MLAs are fast-track courts established in India to expedite the trial of criminal cases pending against Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs). These courts aim to ensure timely justice and uphold the integrity of the electoral process by addressing the issue of criminalization of politics.
Facts & tables
- Purpose
- Expedite trials of criminal cases against sitting and former MPs/MLAs.
- Establishment
- Mandated by the Supreme Court of India to address the large number of pending cases.
- Jurisdiction
- Handle cases involving elected representatives, often at the District and Sessions Judge level.
- Significance
- Aims to reduce criminalization of politics and ensure accountability of public representatives.
| Type | Reference |
|---|---|
| Conceptual area | Indian Polity & Governance |
| Body | Role |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of India | Mandated the establishment of these courts |
| High Courts | Oversee the functioning of these courts within their jurisdiction |
Prelims angle
Prelims angle: Multi-statement analysis
Prelims angle: Factual recall
- Fast-track courts for MPs/MLAs.
- Mandated by Supreme Court.
- Aims to curb criminalization of politics.
- Statutory in nature.
- Jurisdiction at District/Sessions level.
Check if created by Constitution or by Parliament.
| Year | Framing tags |
|---|---|
| 2024 | Factual recall, Conceptual understanding |
| 2024 | Definition-based questions, Institutional roles and functions |
| 2023 | Multi-statement analysis, Factual recall |
| 2022 | Statement-based questions, Factual recall |
| 2021 | Statement-based questions, Conceptual understanding |
| 2019 | Multi-statement analysis, Factual recall |
| 2019 | Statement-based questions, Conceptual understanding |
| 2014 | Factual recall, Conceptual understanding |
Timeline
-
Indian Polity & Governance
Conceptual area
-
Prelims 2014
Factual recall, Conceptual understanding
-
Prelims 2019
Multi-statement analysis, Factual recall
-
Prelims 2019
Statement-based questions, Conceptual understanding
-
Prelims 2021
Statement-based questions, Conceptual understanding
-
Prelims 2022
Statement-based questions, Factual recall
-
Prelims 2023
Multi-statement analysis, Factual recall
-
Prelims 2024
Factual recall, Conceptual understanding
-
Prelims 2024
Definition-based questions, Institutional roles and functions
-
Fresh hearing ordered on plea seeking FIR against Rahul over remarks on Hindu god Ram
Special Courts for MPs/MLAs are fast-track courts mandated by the Supreme Court to expedite criminal trials against elected representatives, aiming to reduce criminalization of politics.
See also
Past papers
2014–2024 · 8 questions
In the news
Fresh hearing ordered on plea seeking FIR against Rahul over remarks on Hindu god Ram
Special Courts for MPs/MLAs are fast-track courts mandated by the Supreme Court to expedite criminal trials against elected representatives, aiming to reduce criminalization of politics.
Try these PYQs
Consider the following statements :
1. The motion to impeach a Judge of the Supreme Court of India cannot be rejected by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha as per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
2. The Constitution of India defines and gives details of what constitutes ‘incapacity and proved misbehaviour’ of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India.
3. The details of the process of impeachment of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India are given in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
4. If the motion for the impeachment of a Judge is taken up for voting, the law requires the motion to be backed by each House of the Parliament and supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by not less than two-thirds of total members of that House present and voting.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Statement 1 is incorrect: The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, explicitly gives the Speaker of the Lok Sabha (or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha) the discretion to either admit or refuse to admit a motion for the removal of a judge. If the motion is not in order or is deemed frivolous, the Speaker can reject it at the initial stage itself. This power was notably exercised by the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha in 2018 when he rejected an impeachment motion against the then Chief Justice of India. Statement 2 is incorrect: The terms "incapacity" and "proven misbehaviour", which are grounds for the removal of a judge under Article 124(4) of the Constitution, are not explicitly defined in the Constitution. Their interpretation has evolved through judicial pronouncements and parliamentary discussions. Statement 3 is correct: The constitutional provisions related to the removal of judges are found in Articles 124(4), 124(5), 217, and 218. Additionally, the process is governed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which outlines the procedural framework for investigating misconduct and incapacity. Statement 4 is correct: As per Article 124(4) of the Constitution, for a motion seeking the removal of a Supreme Court or High Court judge to proceed, it must be passed by:
- A majority of the total membership of the House, and
- A majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting.
Consider the following statements :
1. Pursuant to the report of H.N. Sanyal Committee, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was passed.
2. The Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court and the High Courts to punish for contempt of themselves.
3. The Constitution of India defines Civil Contempt and Criminal Contempt.
4. In India, the Parliament is vested with the powers to make laws on Contempt of Court.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Statement 1 is correct: The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was enacted based on the recommendations of the H.N. Sanyal Committee, which examined the law relating to contempt of courts. Statement 2 is correct: Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution empower the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively, to punish for contempt of themselves. Statement 3 is incorrect: The Constitution does not define civil contempt and criminal contempt; these are defined under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Statement 4 is correct: Parliament has the power to make laws on contempt of court, as evidenced by the enactment of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
With reference to the Constitution of India, consider the following statements:
1. No High Court shall have the jurisdiction to declare any central law to be constitutionally invalid.
2. An amendment to the Constitution of India cannot be called into question by the Supreme Court of India.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Statement 1 is incorrect. High Courts have the power to declare central laws unconstitutional. This power is derived from their inherent jurisdiction to uphold the Constitution. Statement 2 is incorrect. While the Supreme Court cannot question the amending power of the Parliament, it can review the constitutional validity of an amendment. The landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala established the doctrine of the 'basic structure' of the Constitution. Any amendment that violates this basic structure can be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
A Writ of Prohibition is an order issued by the Supreme Court or High Courts to :
Writ of Prohibition: * It is a judicial order issued by a higher court (Supreme Court or High Court) to a lower court or tribunal. * It prevents the lower court from exceeding its jurisdiction or acting contrary to law. * Purpose: To stop ongoing proceedings in a case where the lower court lacks jurisdiction or violates legal procedures. * Nature: It is preventive, ensuring the lower court does not act unlawfully rather than correcting a wrong decision after it has occurred. * Example: If a tribunal starts hearing a case that legally falls under the jurisdiction of a civil court, the Writ of Prohibition can halt such proceedings. * Comparison with Certiorari: Prohibition is issued before judgment to stop proceedings, whereas Certiorari is issued after judgment to quash orders passed unlawfully.
With reference to Indian Judiciary, consider the following statements:
1. Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India with prior permission of the President of India.
2. A High Court in India has the power to review its own judgement as the Supreme Court does.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Statement 1 is correct: Under Article 128, the Chief Justice of India may, at any time, with the previous consent of the President, request a retired Judge of the Supreme Court or a retired Judge of a High Court (who is duly qualified) to sit and act as a Judge of the Supreme Court. Statement 2 is not correct: Although there is no explicit Article in the Constitution equivalent to Article 137 (which grants review power to the SC) for High Courts, the High Courts are "Courts of Record" under Article 215. As a Court of Record, a High Court has the inherent power to review its own orders and judgments to correct any patent error or prevent a miscarriage of justice. This has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in various rulings.
Show 3 more PYQs
The power of the Supreme Court of India to decide disputes between the Centre and the States falls under its
Article 131 of the Constitution of India provides for the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to settle the disputes between the different units of the Indian Federation such as between the Centre and one or more states and, between the states.
Under which of the following Articles of the Constitution of India, has the Supreme Court of India placed the Right to Privacy?
* The Supreme Court of India, in its landmark judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union of India (2017), declared that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution of India. * The court held that this right is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the Right to Life and Personal Liberty. * Article 21: States that 'No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.' The court interpreted 'personal liberty' broadly to include various aspects of privacy. _While the other options are fundamental rights, they are not directly where the Right to Privacy is placed:_ * Article 15: Prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. * Article 16: Guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. * Article 19: Guarantees certain freedoms like speech and expression, assembly, etc.
Consider the following statements:
1. If the election of the President of India is declared void by the Supreme Court of India, all acts done by him/her in the performance of duties of his/her office of President before the date of decision become invalid.
2. Election for the post of the President of India can be postponed on the ground that some Legislative Assemblies have been dissolved and elections are yet to take place.
3. When a Bill is presented to the President of India, the Constitution prescribes time limits within which he/she has to declare his/her assent.
How many of the above statements are correct?
* Statement 1 is incorrect: If the election of a person as President is declared void by the Supreme Court, acts done by him before the date of such declaration of the Supreme Court are not invalidated and continue to remain in force. * Statement 2 is incorrect: The Supreme Court in 1974 held that the dissolution of the state legislative assembly would not be a ground for preventing the holding of the election on the expiry of the term of the President. Nor can it be grounds to suggest that the election to the office of the President could be held only after the election to the state is held, where the Legislative Assembly of a State is dissolved. * Statement 3 is incorrect: The Constitution of India does not prescribe any time limit within which the President has to decide concerning a bill presented to him/her for his/her assent. Thus the President of India can simply keep the bills pending for an indefinite period.