<p>The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that the Allahabad High Court has misinterpreted its order by not creating magisterial courts for trying cases against MPs/MLAs, instead designated only sessions courts for such purposes. </p>.<p>"Don't misinterpret our orders. We know what our orders are. We allowed creation of magisterial courts," a bench of Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justices D Y Chandrachud and Surya Kant specifically told the High Court’s counsel.</p>.<p>"If you don't create magisterial courts, and give the cases to in-charge sessions judge, for how many years the cases will drag on? Was it our intention," the bench further asked the counsel.</p>.<p>The counsel said nearly 13,000 cases are pending in Uttar Pradesh against sitting and former MPs and MLAs and 63 special courts have been created for their trial.</p>.<p>The bench, however, pointed out its previous order was clear on constitution of as much sessions courts and magisterial courts as deemed fit. </p>.<p>The bench said there was nothing in the order of September 16, 2020 to indicate that this court wanted to transfer the cases triable by magistrates to sessions court by exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.</p>.<p>Senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, acting as amicus curiae, submitted that States like Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, and West Bengal have created one designated court at magistrate level for cases against MPs/MLAs.</p>.<p>The bench reserved its order indicating that it was contemplating to pass directions to the High Courts and state governments to create special magistrate courts and to transfer the cases from sessions courts to magistrate courts, from the stage where the trial is over. </p>.<p>Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for senior SP leader Azam Khan, questioned the validity of the notification issued by the Allahabad High Court, by which cases triable by magistrates were transferred to the special court headed by an officer of the rank of additional sessions judge. He said it was discriminatory as other States created magistrate level courts too for sitting and former MP and MLAs.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that the Allahabad High Court has misinterpreted its order by not creating magisterial courts for trying cases against MPs/MLAs, instead designated only sessions courts for such purposes. </p>.<p>"Don't misinterpret our orders. We know what our orders are. We allowed creation of magisterial courts," a bench of Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justices D Y Chandrachud and Surya Kant specifically told the High Court’s counsel.</p>.<p>"If you don't create magisterial courts, and give the cases to in-charge sessions judge, for how many years the cases will drag on? Was it our intention," the bench further asked the counsel.</p>.<p>The counsel said nearly 13,000 cases are pending in Uttar Pradesh against sitting and former MPs and MLAs and 63 special courts have been created for their trial.</p>.<p>The bench, however, pointed out its previous order was clear on constitution of as much sessions courts and magisterial courts as deemed fit. </p>.<p>The bench said there was nothing in the order of September 16, 2020 to indicate that this court wanted to transfer the cases triable by magistrates to sessions court by exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.</p>.<p>Senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, acting as amicus curiae, submitted that States like Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, and West Bengal have created one designated court at magistrate level for cases against MPs/MLAs.</p>.<p>The bench reserved its order indicating that it was contemplating to pass directions to the High Courts and state governments to create special magistrate courts and to transfer the cases from sessions courts to magistrate courts, from the stage where the trial is over. </p>.<p>Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for senior SP leader Azam Khan, questioned the validity of the notification issued by the Allahabad High Court, by which cases triable by magistrates were transferred to the special court headed by an officer of the rank of additional sessions judge. He said it was discriminatory as other States created magistrate level courts too for sitting and former MP and MLAs.</p>
