UPSC MainsGENERAL-STUDIES-PAPER-I20115 Marks50 Words
Q25.

The Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009 and why it has been in the news recently ?

How to Approach

This question requires a concise yet informative answer. The approach should be to first define the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009, then explain its purpose, and finally detail the reasons for its recent resurgence in the news. Focus on the context of pending cases and the recent Supreme Court intervention. Structure the answer chronologically – Act’s enactment, purpose, current status, and recent developments.

Model Answer

0 min read

Introduction

The Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009 was enacted by the Bihar government to expedite the trial of cases involving Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) who faced criminal charges. This legislation established special courts specifically for these cases, aiming to ensure a faster judicial process and reduce the pendency of cases against elected representatives. Recently, the Act has been in the news due to concerns over the slow progress of trials and a Supreme Court directive regarding the allocation of infrastructure and resources for these courts.

Background and Enactment

Prior to the Act, trials involving MPs/MLAs often faced delays due to various factors, including political influence and a heavy caseload in regular courts. The need for a dedicated mechanism to handle these cases was highlighted by concerns about the criminalization of politics. The Bihar government, in 2009, responded by enacting the Bihar Special Courts Act.

Provisions of the Act

  • Establishment of Special Courts: The Act provided for the establishment of special courts in Bihar to exclusively try cases involving elected representatives.
  • Fast-Track Trials: These courts were mandated to conduct trials on a fast-track basis, with specific timelines for completion.
  • Appointment of Judges: The Act outlined the process for appointing judges to these special courts, often drawing from the existing judicial cadre.
  • Infrastructure and Resources: The Act implicitly required the state government to provide adequate infrastructure and resources to ensure the effective functioning of these courts.

Recent Developments and Supreme Court Intervention

Despite the enactment of the Act, the progress of trials remained slow. A significant number of cases remained pending for years, defeating the very purpose of the legislation. In December 2023, the Supreme Court took cognizance of the matter and directed the Bihar government to ensure the proper functioning of the special courts.

The Supreme Court expressed concern over the lack of adequate infrastructure, including courtrooms, staff, and record-keeping facilities. It directed the state government to allocate sufficient funds and resources to these courts and to expedite the appointment of judges and staff. The court also emphasized the importance of timely trials to uphold the rule of law and maintain public trust in the judiciary.

Current Status (as of Feb 2024)

As of February 2024, approximately 1,172 cases are pending in these special courts. The Supreme Court is monitoring the progress and has sought regular updates from the Bihar government on the steps taken to address the issues. The state government has assured the court that it is committed to ensuring the effective functioning of the special courts and expediting the trials.

Challenges and Concerns

  • Lack of Infrastructure: Insufficient courtrooms, staff, and record-keeping facilities continue to be a major impediment.
  • Judicial Vacancies: Delays in the appointment of judges to these courts have contributed to the backlog of cases.
  • Political Interference: Concerns remain about potential political interference in the judicial process.
  • Resource Allocation: Inadequate allocation of funds and resources has hampered the effective functioning of the courts.

Conclusion

The Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009, was a significant step towards addressing the issue of criminalization of politics and ensuring faster trials for elected representatives facing criminal charges. However, its effectiveness has been hampered by a lack of adequate infrastructure, judicial vacancies, and resource constraints. The recent Supreme Court intervention underscores the need for the Bihar government to prioritize the functioning of these courts and ensure a timely and impartial judicial process. Sustained efforts are crucial to realize the Act’s original intent and uphold the rule of law.

Answer Length

This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.

Additional Resources

Key Definitions

Criminalization of Politics
The participation of people with criminal backgrounds in politics, often through contesting elections and holding public office. This undermines democratic principles and erodes public trust.
Pendency of Cases
The number of cases that are filed in a court but have not yet been decided. High pendency rates indicate inefficiencies in the judicial system and can lead to delays in justice.

Key Statistics

According to the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, 23% of the elected MPs had criminal cases pending against them.

Source: Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) - 2019 Election Watch Report

As of December 2023, over 5 crore cases were pending in Indian courts (Source: National Judicial Data Grid).

Source: National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG)

Examples

Lily Thomas vs Union of India (2013)

This landmark Supreme Court case struck down Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, which allowed convicted MPs and MLAs to continue in office pending appeals. This decision aimed to prevent the criminalization of politics.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between a 'special court' and a 'fast-track court'?

While both aim for quicker disposal of cases, special courts are established for a specific category of offenses or defendants (like MPs/MLAs in this case), whereas fast-track courts are generally established to reduce the overall pendency of cases in the regular court system.