Bench rises for the day. Hearing to continue tomorrow at 11.30 am..There is no question of special judge or Prosecutor being affected: Dr. Singhvi..Court asks why Law Minister was in the court. Dr. Singhvi says presence of law minister shows two things: faith in court and support to colleagues..The response of CM and other functionaries was a natural reaction to political action. The reaction was not against court but against CBI: Dr. Singhvi .Dr. Singhvi refers to the 2000 judgment of Supreme Court in Abdul Nazar Madani v. State of Tamil Nadu on transfer of case. .This argument by CBI is only to set aside a lawfully passed order: Dr. Singhvi.Did the emotional outpour affect or impede court proceedings: Dr. Singhvi.That is different. Perception of a man walking in a park in Kolkata cannot be ground to vitiate proceedings: Dr. Singhvi.Justice IP Mukerji asks if a litigant sees opposite party going to judges chamber and then coming out, can he not have a perception of bias though the judge might or might not have been influenced by the party who went in..He has taken chalk and applied to cheese in his 64 page volume of case laws he has submitted. None of the case deal with a perception of a reasonable man being ground for vitiating proceedings: Dr. Singhvi.Dr. Singhvi says none of the single case cited by him covers his argument. If there is a fact like say the judge has shareholding which was not disclosed, then that could lead to apprehension of bias..The submission of SG is that the effect may not be actual but a reasonable man should have notion that the judicial functioning has been affected: Justice IP Mukerji.I cannot have put it better. Can a court assess a notion? Dr. Singhvi..The test should be such that the functioning of court is made impossible by such acts and they have direct impact on judicial adjudicatory process..Dr. Singhvi continues his arguments. Singhvi citing the Vinay Chandra Mishra judgment of Supreme Court where litigant misbehaved with Allahabad High Court..You are comparing statutory prescriptions to procedural norms: Dr. Singhvi responds.I would adopt Dr. Singhvi's argument as far as this whole Single Judge-Division Bench issue they have raised: SG Tushar Mehta.These are procedural conveniences. Mr. Mehta can rebutt if he feels the affidavit has something extra. But hearing on mobocracy should be after hearing State: Dr. Singhvi.Sidharth Luthra supports AG Kishore Dutta. Accused are throwing its weight behind the State: SG Tushar Mehta.AG Kishore Dutta says State has all information on what happened at Nizam Palace .I am not going into the independence of the state. But my objection is that have filed it after I concluded my arguments: SG Tushar Mehta.AG Kishore Dutta objects; says State affidavit is limited to alleged law and order situation. State is the only independent respondent here who can give facts without taking sides: AG Kishore Dutta .Says State was impleaded 10 days ago. Normally I don't opposes filing. But they have filed after my arguments. The accused have not filed any affidavit. Now to fill up lacunae the State has filed: SG Tushar Mehta.Bench assembles. SG Tushar Mehta opposes State of West Bengal affidavit. .Bench rises for lunch. Will resume at 2. Advocate General Kishore Dutta says State of West Bengal has filed it's affidavit. Why are pleadings being filed after argument of one party is completed: Acting CJ.We won't return it anways. We will see: Acting CJ Rajesh Bindal.No judgment will be safe if any democratic protests is ground to hold court proceedings vitiated: Dr. Singhvi.When Sanjay Duty TADA case came to Supreme Court, there were emotional scenes outside Supreme Court: Dr. Singhvi .So there must be an objective conclusion that the city was in flames and it affected courts. But to say subjective perception of people is decisive factor would be a travesty: Dr. Singhvi..Who will decide this if this allowed. My perception is not Mr. Mehta's perception. And Mr. Mehta's perception might not be Mr. Dastoor's perception: Dr. Singhvi.1984 Delhi and 2002 Gujarat were instances of mobocracy but even that did not affect courts: Dr. Singhvi.Justice Arijit Banerjee asks when can a proceedings stand vitiated due to mobocracy. There has to be very high degree of such mobocracy and it has to affect courts: Dr. Singhvi..I have never seen a prosecuting agency more malevolent in arresting leaders after swearing in after getting sanction when cabinet was not there: Dr. Singhvi.The fact that the CM and minister was there should be seen in the context of who the prosecuting agency is: Dr. Singhvi.When a prosecuting agency of centre is clearly acting maliciously, then it makes no difference whether those who are protesting are ministers or Chief Minister: Dr. Singhvi.They in all fairness conceded that there was no pecuniary or person bias in part of judge. How will you control this horse of perception test: Dr. Singhvi.They could not have proved bias. So they tried to say it is not actual bias they are trying to prove but some perception of bias that might have been caused to common man: Dr. Singhvi..And they raise the issue after arguing before the court and passes an order. Suddenly the proceedings become null and void. It an ex post facto after thought to justify their actions that day: Dr. Singhvi.Mobocracy is an excuse. They misrepresent as if there is martial law in Kolkata: Dr. AM Singhvi.Is there is any such order where a judge records it? Acting CJ Bindal. There are many order where judge records conduct of parties and lawyers and then recuse or pass order: Dr Singhvi.I am not saying the judge has to record details. But there has to be some material in the order suggesting judge being overawed. But not even a whisper of that in the order: Dr. Singhvi.Acting CJ says it was not a protest by common man but a protest by Constitutional functionaries. That needs to be kept in mind. .Public perception regarding events happening in a court complex, will it vitiate proceedings or not: Justice Soumen Sen..Dr. Singhvi says he will deal with part of the mobocracy (sixth issue) right away and then come back to other arguements.Assuming he was there, let me put bluntly, it makes a jot of difference to the bail order's validity: Dr. Singhvi.Dr. Singhvi says MLAs had come out in support of colleagues. Acting CJ Rajesh Bindal ask why law minister was in court? Does he usually go to court?.We are proud in this country that there is democracy thriving. That is why our building and highways take longer than China. We are 10 to 12 years behind because of D word - democracy: Dr. Singhvi.CBI is trying to brush all other issues under the carpet of mobocracy: Dr. Singhvi.But let me come to the issue of mobocracy. There is no material to show such mobocracy: Dr. Singhvi.CBI knows well that in all five points which I have raised, it has no case: Dr. Singhvi.If a protest peaceful then it is not mobocracy. Mobocracy suggest highly illegal action by mob. It is a question of fact. Was there such mobocracy? Justice Mukerji to Dr. Singhvi.It is against rights of all, deprived classes and privileged classes alike. Of course it affects and is applied more detrimentally against deprived classes: Dr. Singhvi .CBI is not challenging the bail order on merits. What he is saying is the environment due to mobocracy was such the entire proceedings stood vitiated: Justice IP Mukerji..Nobody is questioning their power. But they do not have any obligation to arrest Casual arrest is a Draconian thing: Dr. Singhvi..Discussion now on Section 41A of CRPC on requiring persons who need not be arrested, to appear before police if there is reasonable suspicion that such person has committed a cognizable offence..The IO itself had given in writing to the court that these people have been investigated: Dr. Singhvi .I am on general principle. They had gone and given their voice samples years ago. Immediately after elections, they are arrested: Dr. Singhvi .Dr. Singhvi cites how triple test was applied by Supreme Court to grant bail..Dr. Singhvi cites DK Shivakumar judgment of single judge of Delhi High Court..Dr. Singhvi citing P Chidambaram judgment of Supreme Court in INX media case on grant of bail..Res Ipsa loquitur is used for civil law. But let me with Your Lordships permission use it in criminal case. The facts speaks for themselves and the facts are enough to grant relief to accused: Dr. Singhvi.Are they such flight risks that only way for CBI to deal with them is custodial interrogation: Dr. Singhvi..One of the accused is a minister since 2011. Second person is MLA for 50 years. My question is since 2014 when sting happened, what else is left for them to tamper with if they want to. How much non-cooperation can they do. And with such roots, how much flight risk are they?.The test for bail is flight risk, noncooperation and tampering of evidence. If court finds these three things are not likely to happen, then bail is granted. It is common sense: Dr. Singhvi.Singhvi first starts with aspect of bail. Traces the facts leading to arrest. The Governor grants sanction to CBI on May 7. New cabinet is sworn in on May 10. Charge-sheet is filed on May 17 and arrest happens on May 17: Dr. Singhvi.If the perception test advanced by them is accepted, it will become a wide unruly horse. Any order of a court will be sought to be overturned citing some democratic protest: Dr. Singhvi.Dr. Singhvi resumes his arguments. He says there is one additional issue aside from the five issues he had set out last week - Violation of Rules of High Court in listing..Their submission is one issue - mobocracy must submerge all other issues: Dr. Singhvi.A 5-judge Bench of Calcutta High Court is hearing the plea moved by the CBI to transfer the Narada scam case presently pending before a special court to the High Court..Recently, the Court had granted interim bail to the four TMC leaders, Firhad Hakim, Subrata Mukherjee, Madan Mitra and Sovan Chatterjee, who were arrested by the CBI in relation to the case on May 17..Read an account of the last hearing here..Live updates from the hearing today feature here
