Criminalisation of Politics: Why Special MP/MLA Courts Are Failing to Clear the Backlog

Context: An August 2026 amicus curiae report to the Supreme Court revealed that criminal cases against sitting and former MPs/MLAs increased from 4,075 in 2018 to 4,266 in July 2026, despite dedicated Fast Track Courts.

About Criminalisation of Politics: Why Special MP/MLA Courts Are Failing to Clear the Backlog

What it is?

• Special MP/MLA Courts were instituted following the Supreme Court’s landmark order on December 14, 2017, in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India. Disturbed by the deepening criminalization of politics, the apex court directed the setting up of 12 dedicated Fast Track Courts across 10 States/UTs to fast-track long-pending criminal trials involving elected representatives.

Key Findings:

• Persistent Backlog: Despite special courts, pending cases against MPs/MLAs rose from 4,075 in 2018 to 4,266 in July 2026.
• Prolonged Trials: Around 1,838 cases have remained pending for over five years, including 746 for more than a decade.
• Fresh Cases Offset Disposal: In 2025, special courts disposed of 1,454 cases, but 1,234 new cases substantially offset the reduction.
• Legislators Face Significant Pendency: Cases involve 401 sitting MPs, 1,393 sitting MLAs, and several former legislators, while 14 State Chief Ministers also face pending cases.
• Regional Concentration: Uttar Pradesh (1,220) has the highest pendency, followed by Kerala (543), Bihar (373), Maharashtra (364) and Odisha (330).

Extent of Criminalization: Current Legislative Landscape (ADR Data)

• 18th Lok Sabha: Out of 543 members, 251 MPs (46%) have declared criminal cases in their election affidavits; 170 MPs (31%) face serious criminal charges punishable with imprisonment of 5 years or more.
• Rajya Sabha: Out of 233 members, 75 MPs (33%) have declared criminal cases, with 40 MPs (18%) facing serious criminal charges.
• State Legislative Assemblies: Across 4,111 sitting MLAs nationwide, 2,098 MLAs (51%) have criminal cases pending, with 1,286 MLAs (31%) facing serious criminal allegations.

Why Fast Track Courts Never Got Fast?

• Non-Dedicated Courts: Many designated special courts are not exclusively earmarked for legislator trials; presiding judges concurrently handle routine sessions trials, and narcotics matters, diluting time allocated to high-profile cases.
• Frequent High Court Stays (Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS): Accused politicians frequently approach High Courts to quash charges or challenge interlocutory trial orders, obtaining interim stays that stall trial court proceedings for years.
• Subordination of State Investigative & Prosecution Wings: State police agencies and public prosecutors operate under the administrative control of the state home department (executive), resulting in delayed chargesheets, slow summons execution, and deliberate procedural foot-dragging.
• Witness Vulnerability & Hostility: The extended length of trials—often spanning decades—operates in favor of influential politicians who use administrative clout to wear down complainant resolve, leading to witnesses turning hostile or evidence deteriorating.
• Liberal Adjournments by Trial Judges: Despite apex court directives against casual adjournments, trial courts frequently grant routine postponements due to the non-appearance of accused lawmakers or failure of police to produce material witnesses.
• Inadequate High Court Supervision: Special monitoring benches headed by High Court Chief Justices have been irregular in their oversight, frequently adjourning the mandatory suo motu monitoring proceedings.

Statutory & Electoral Reform Debates:

• Disqualification on Framing of Charges:
  • The Law Commission of India (170th Report, 1999) recommended disqualifying individuals from contesting elections immediately upon the framing of charges by a competent court for serious election offences or offences punishable with life imprisonment.
  • The Election Commission of India (2004 Proposals) reiterated that candidates against whom charges have been framed for offences carrying 5+ years imprisonment should be debarred from contesting elections.
• Challenging the 6-Year Disqualification Limit: The Supreme Court is currently examining the constitutionality of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which limits disqualification to the period of imprisonment plus an additional six years from release. Public interest petitions seek a permanent lifetime electoral ban for convicted politicians, matching the lifetime disqualification rules governing civil servants and judges.

Way Ahead:

• Exclusively Dedicated Special Courts: Mandate that MP/MLA fast-track courts hear legislator cases exclusively on a day-to-day basis until full disposal, prohibiting the transfer of general trial dockets to these benches.
• Time-Bound High Court Stay Petitions: As recommended by judicial experts, High Courts must exercise extreme restraint in staying trials, mandating that any interim stay application be disposed of within a strict 30 to 60-day deadline.
• Independent Directorate of Prosecution: Structurally insulate prosecuting officers and investigating officers in MP/MLA cases from the state executive, placing them under independent judicial supervision.
• Strict Non-Appearance Penalties: Implement amicus curiae recommendations to mandate the automatic issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) if an accused legislator fails to appear for two consecutive trial dates without medical justification.
• Day-to-Day Trial Hearings for 3+ Year-Old Cases: Enforce continuous day-to-day trial proceedings for all cases pending for more than three years until prosecution and defense witness cross-examinations are concluded.

Conclusion:

The growing pendency of criminal cases against lawmakers undermines public confidence in democratic institutions and the rule of law. When individuals facing serious criminal charges continue to legislate and govern, judicial delays inadvertently reinforce political impunity. Establishing truly dedicated trial benches, capping interlocutory stays, and enforcing day-to-day trial procedures are essential to ensuring that Fast Track Courts deliver timely justice and sever the nexus between crime and legislative power.