The Supreme Court bench comprised of CJI UU Lalit, Justice Ravindra Bhat, and Justice Bela M. Trivedi refused to hear a petition seeking the establishment of anti-corruption courts in districts all over India with the mandate to resolve each case within a year. The bench stated orally that the petition lacked specificity. As a result, the bench advised the petitioner to withdraw the case. As a result, the petition was withdrawn. The PIL also claimed that India had never been ranked among the top 50 in the Corruption Perception Index and that the Centre and state governments had not taken appropriate anti-corruption measures.

The petition also stated that the right to life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 cannot be secured, and the golden goals of the Preamble cannot be realized, unless the Centre and States take steps to reaffirm the rule of law, improve transparency, and warn looters that betrayal of public trust will no longer be tolerated. It was argued that India's anti-corruption laws are extremely weak and ineffective, failing to control corruption.

Likewise, the petition requested that all High Courts take appropriate steps to resolve corruption-related cases involving black money, benami property, disproportionate assets, bribery, money laundering, tax evasion, profiteering, hoarding, adulteration, human-drug trafficking, black marketing, dishonest misappropriation of property, cheating, fraud, forgery, corporate fraud, forensic fraud, foreign exchange, and other economic offences within a year.

However, the bench was not convinced. Justice Bhat stated–

"If we do this, other courts are over burdened. Why should we micro manage everything? If an investigative agency is taking a long time, it's not our job. No judicial discretion is required here."

Case Details:-

WP(C) No. 1470/2020

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UoI and Ors.