ORDER 1. The amended prayers in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 699 of 2016 are: “a. direct and declare the words ”and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release” be severed from sections 8(1)(ii), 8(2) and 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the words ”for a period of five years from the date of such dismissal” be severed from section 9(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as invalid and ultra-vires the Article 14 and basic structure of the Constitution of India; b. direct the Respondent-1 to take appropriate steps to setup Special Courts to decide the cases related to people representative and public servants within one year and implement the important electoral reforms, proposed by the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, Law Commission of India in its 244th and 255th Report and Election Commission of India; c. direct the Respondents to take appropriate steps to debar the person convicted for the offences specified in sections 8(1), 8(2), 8(3), 9(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 from contesting MLA/MP election, forming political party or becoming office bearer of political party.” 2. We note that the challenge to the vires of part of Section 9 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 [RoP Act] was not part of the original prayer and has been incorporated by an amendment. 3. Insofar as prayer “b” is concerned, it has been brought to our notice that this Court (cor. Hon’ble Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJI., Hon’ble P.S. Narasimha and Hon’ble Manoj Misra, JJ.) vide judgment and order dated November 9, 2023 [since reported in (2024) 1 SCC 185 ] has dealt with such prayer. While making several directions contained in paragraphs 21.1 to 21.7 therein, the said Bench concluded as follows: “22. With these directions, we dispose of this writ petition with respect to the first prayer concerning the expeditious disposal of criminal cases against elected Members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies. 23. This writ petition will now be listed for hearing on the other issue relating to the constitutional validity of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. We also place on record our appreciation for the efforts taken by the learned Amicus Curiae.” 4. 23. This writ petition will now be listed for hearing on the other issue relating to the constitutional validity of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. We also place on record our appreciation for the efforts taken by the learned Amicus Curiae.” 4. In view of disposal of the writ petition (we read it as disposal of prayer “b”) with regard to expeditious disposal of criminal cases against the elected Members of Parliament and the Legislative Assemblies, as recorded in paragraph 22, we, sitting in a combination of two Judges, find it inappropriate to reopen the issue upon appreciation of the submissions advanced by learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Hansaria that not much progress has been achieved in terms of the directions in paragraph 21.1 to 21.7 thereof and while on the one hand the pending cases are not being disposed of, there has been addition of new cases which, having regard to the present institutional framework, the special courts dealing with cases of MPs/MLAs is unable to tackle. 5. However, this issue of reopening the matter concerning prayer “b” having regard to concerns of propriety ought to be considered by a Bench having combination of three Judges. For the present, we consider it appropriate to refer the matter to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate Bench. 6. However, the issue relating to Constitutional validity of parts of Section 8 of the RoP Act (referred to in paragraph 23) and also Section 9 thereof, which form part of the amended prayers, does survive for consideration and we propose to fix an appropriate schedule for deciding such issue. Be it recorded that submissions in relation to prayer “c” would be heard later, if at all considered necessary. 7. We have been informed by Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that although counter affidavit to the writ petition was invited from the Union of India, [UoI] no such affidavit has been filed despite lapse of more than four years. 8. Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned senior counsel appears for the UoI. As prayed by her, we grant the UoI three weeks’ time to file its counter affidavit. Learned counsel for Election Commission of India [ECI] (respondent no.2) also seeks and is granted similar time of three weeks to file its counter affidavit. 9. 8. Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned senior counsel appears for the UoI. As prayed by her, we grant the UoI three weeks’ time to file its counter affidavit. Learned counsel for Election Commission of India [ECI] (respondent no.2) also seeks and is granted similar time of three weeks to file its counter affidavit. 9. Once the counter affidavits are filed, we would consider granting some time to the petitioner to file his rejoinder affidavit; if no such rejoinder affidavit is sought to be filed, we shall proceed with the hearing of the Constitutional issue(s) on such date(s) as may be fixed. 10. Relist the writ petition on 4th March, 2025 to ascertain whether counter affidavit(s) has/have been filed by the UoI and the ECI. We make it clear that if no counter affidavit(s) is/are filed, hearing will commence without such counter affidavit(s). 11. Since Constitutional validity of parts of Sections 8 and 9 of the RoP Act is involved, we desire the Attorney General for India to address us. A copy of this order may be sent to the office of the Attorney General for India by the Registry. IA No. 22794 of 2025: 12. IA No. 22794 of 2025, in W.P. (C) No.699 of 2016, is an application by the Registrar General, High Court of Delhi seeking the following relief: “a. Clarify that the High Court may authorise that trial of MPs/MLAs (including Ex-MPs/MLAs) who are facing trial of the scheduled offences as prescribed in the Special Acts like NIA Act by the Special Court designated/constituted under Section 11 of the NIA Act instead of by the Special Courts created for the trial of MPs/MLAs and thereby enabling the High Court to issue necessary notification/office order in this regard.” 13. The facts and circumstances triggering this application have been narrated in paragraph 7 of the application and its several sub-paragraphs. The concern expressed by the Registrar General has then been averred in paragraphs 8 to 11 thereof. 14. Since trial against the relevant Member of Parliament had commenced even before his election and as on date 21 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution before the Special Court constituted under the National Investigation Agency (Amendment) Act, 2019, in the special facts and circumstances that have been projected before us, we grant clarification as prayed by the Registrar General. Since trial against the relevant Member of Parliament had commenced even before his election and as on date 21 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution before the Special Court constituted under the National Investigation Agency (Amendment) Act, 2019, in the special facts and circumstances that have been projected before us, we grant clarification as prayed by the Registrar General. There shall be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the application. 15. IA No. 22794 of 2025 stands disposed of.