Competition to Gujarat judges? What Supreme Court said

Justice BR Gavai of the Supreme Court on April 30 quipped that the Delhi High Court seemed to be giving Gujarat judges competition in terms of questionable reasoning given in bail and remand orders..A Bench of Justices Gavai and Sandeep Mehta was hearing a plea filed by NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha challenging his arrest and remand by the Delhi Police in connection with a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).While orally noting that the remand order appeared to have been passed prior to intimating Purkayastha's counsel, Justice Gavai addressed Additional Solicitor General SV Raju. The judge smiled and said,"Are you happy that, in a lighter vein, the (Delhi) High Court judge is giving competition to Gujarat judges? I have had the occasion of at least three judgments from there. There are such judges in all courts, even here." Justice Mehta weighed in, saying,"In every court."The ASG said that while he cannot speak for the apex court in this regard, some judges are known to pass favourable orders only after lunch..The Delhi High Court ruling being referred to was one which upheld Purkayastha's arrest and remand.In a detailed judgment, a single-judge had said that "it appears as of now" that the grounds of arrest were indeed conveyed to Purkayastha and Chakraborty, "as soon as may be, after the arrest"..NewsClick case: Why was Prabir Purkayastha hastily remanded without informing his lawyer? Supreme Court.During Tuesday's hearing of Purkayastha's case, ASG Raju backed the Delhi High Court order and added that the NewsClick founder was orally informed of the grounds of his detention at the time of his arrest. "But that is not enough after Pankaj Bansal (is the contention). The High Court was bound by Pankaj Bansal judgment," Justice Gavai had then responded.Justice Mehta added that the Pankaj Bansal judgment had been delivered prior to Purkayastha's arrest.In the Pankaj Bansal verdict, the Supreme Court had made it clear that accused persons arrested in connection with cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) have a constitutional and statutory right to be informed of the grounds of their arrest. The Court had held that a mere reading of the grounds of arrest would not be an adequate compliance with the mandate under Article 22(1) (protection against arrest and detention) of the Constitution and Section 19(1) of the PMLA.The Court eventually reserved its judgment in Purkayastha's matter.