251 Lok Sabha MPs, 75 Rajya Sabha members face criminal cases: Supreme Court report

251 Lok Sabha MPs, 75 Rajya Sabha members face criminal cases: Supreme Court report

An affidavit before the Supreme Court says hundreds of sitting MPs face criminal cases and thousands remain pending against lawmakers. The filing seeks tighter court monitoring and faster trials, saying little has changed since 2018.

India TodayNE
  • Aug 17, 2026,
  • Updated Aug 17, 2026, 5:47 PM IST

    A report submitted to the Supreme Court has highlighted the extent of criminalisation among lawmakers, with 251 of the 543 Lok Sabha members and 75 of the 233 Rajya Sabha members facing criminal cases.

    The data was presented in an affidavit filed by senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, who is assisting the apex court as amicus curiae in a public interest litigation seeking the speedy disposal of criminal cases against MPs and MLAs.

    The affidavit said 170 Lok Sabha members and 40 Rajya Sabha members face serious criminal cases, defined as offences punishable with imprisonment of five years or more. The figures were based on data compiled by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR).

    More than 4,000 criminal cases are currently pending against serving and former MPs and MLAs, the report said. The total number of pending cases stands at 4,192.

    The report also found that 14 of India's 28 chief ministers have declared criminal cases against themselves, including serious offences.

    Telangana Chief Minister Anumula Revanth Reddy has the highest number, with 89 cases declared against him. He is followed by West Bengal Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari with 29 cases and Karnataka Chief Minister D K Shivakumar with 19.

    Hansaria told the court that despite continuous monitoring by the Supreme Court and various high courts, there has been little change in the number of pending criminal cases against lawmakers since 2018.

    Data compiled from different high courts showed that 1,243 cases were disposed of in 2025, while 1,050 new cases were registered during the same year.

    The affidavit also examined the criminal cases involving MPs across states, based on reports submitted by various high courts. The data did not include Uttar Pradesh as the Allahabad High Court had not submitted its report.

    Kerala recorded the highest proportion, with 19 of its 20 MPs facing criminal cases. Eleven of them were facing serious cases.

    In Telangana, 14 of 17 MPs had criminal cases, while Odisha reported 16 of 21 MPs facing such charges. Jharkhand had 10 of its 14 MPs facing criminal cases, Tamil Nadu had 26 of 39, and around half of the MPs in Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Bihar, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh had declared criminal cases.

    The numbers were lower in several other states. Haryana had one of its 10 MPs facing criminal charges, while Chhattisgarh had one of 11. Punjab had two of 13, Assam three of 14, Delhi three of seven, Rajasthan four of 25, Gujarat five of 25 and Madhya Pradesh nine of 29 MPs facing criminal cases.

    Hansaria has sought stronger monitoring mechanisms to ensure that cases against lawmakers are disposed of without prolonged delays.

    He proposed that courts designated as special courts for MPs and MLAs should focus exclusively on such cases and take up other judicial work only after completing trials involving lawmakers.

    The amicus also sought directions for high courts to review the progress of such trials every month and ensure that cases are completed within a year of charges being framed.

    For cases pending for more than three years, Hansaria has asked high courts to undertake detailed monitoring and issue effective directions to ensure their early disposal.

    The PIL was filed by BJP leader and lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay, seeking a mechanism for the expeditious disposal of criminal cases against elected representatives.

    The Supreme Court had, in November 2023, directed high courts to establish special benches to monitor criminal cases involving MPs and MLAs. It had also directed special courts to avoid adjournments in such matters except in rare and compelling circumstances and asked courts to give priority to cases against members of Parliament, legislative assemblies and legislative councils.

    Read more!