Narada Case: Except in the rarest of rare cases, Court cannot impede rights of accused by transferring matter, AM Singhvi [LIVE UPDATES]

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.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta requests to address the Court. Objects to the filing of affidavits during the hearing..Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi not being allowed into the hearing..Singhvi finally enters after facing technical difficulties..Senior Rakesh Dwivedi: "He (SG) can file affidavits whenever he wants, but we cant get four days to respond to their filings?".Advocate General Kishore Dutta cites Calcutta High Court Rules: Rule doesn't say that affidavit cannot be filed once arguments commence. We have a right to file it within four weeks under the Rules..Affidavit on conduct of West Bengal Chief Minister was filed by CBI before notice was issued, on May 24. They filed an affidavit on June 2: SG Mehta.They can argue within four weeks and after Court reserves order, they can file affidavit? This cannot be the Rule: SG Mehta.These are the Rules of the High Court. The law cannot be twisted for your convenience: AG Dutta.Chronology is simple. They took the opportunity to file the affidavit after my arguments were made. The affidavit was filed as an afterthought. You cannot fill up the lacunae after arguments are made: SG Mehta .Now that he has finished his arguments, it is difficult for us to go to your affidavit: Court.Apologies for the inconvenience, but it is a question of justice. This affidavit was filed on behalf of an accused who does not have anything to do with the case: Rakesh Dwivedi .If the affidavit is ignored, the interests of justice will not be served. These are serious charges by the CBI, therefore they should prove the facts. Why should he shy away from bringing out the facts? Dwivedi .Chief Justice Bindal: You cannot take the Court for a ride like this. Chief Minister is managing COVID-19 related issues: Dwivedi..There is a sanctity to the proceedings before the Court. My earnest request is that the Court make an example of this: SG Mehta.Rule 38, cited by AG Dutta, begins with "unless the Court otherwise directs:" Court.Let Dr Singhvi continue and we will consider these debatable questions after. We cannot start the matter de novo after taking affidavit: Court.Singhvi in lighter vein: Judicial clock must subtract 45 minutes from my arguing time. SG Mehta: I would request Singhvi not to charge for these 45 minutes! Singhvi: I wish my clients were paying me by the minute!.Singhvi resumes arguments on Section 407 CrPC, which deals with power of High Courts to transfer cases and appeals..I am on the spirit and structure of the Section. It is very clear that wide words are used (in the Section) to give your Lordships wide power: Singhvi.The Section requires the Court to form an opinion: Singhvi.Look at the law the CBI is teaching. For somebody who is talking about natural justice, it is worse than the pot calling the kettle black: Singhvi .If any litigant came to Your Lordships like this, you would have a negative reaction. The CBI has given an Alice in Wonderland meaning to the term "premier investigating agency": Singhvi.Singhvi refers to order granting bail to the TMC leaders. Prosecution made request by email and WhatsApp to judges. Investigation is completed for the four leaders (Singhvi's clients), but was open for other accused..No notice given to accused prior to the arrest. For offences punishable with less that seven years, Supreme Court had directed release of prisoners during COVID-19: Singhvi.CBI Judge (who granted bail) took everything into consideration, was not overawed: SinghviCBI Judge (who granted bail) took everything into consideration, was not overawed: Singhvi.Ultimately, law is supposed to be common sense. There need not be arguments against the arrest of these persons during COVID-19, six years after the case was registered: Singhvi.The Special CBI Judge was very fair in noting all contentions made by both parties. He did not find any ground for re-hearing of the case: Singhvi .For a 2011 scam and a 2014 sting, mere prayer for judicial custody cannot be a ground for detention of the accused: Singhvi.Impossibility of conducting trial, ruckus, etc. Which of these has impeded the judge from passing an order? Where does 407 CrPC arise? Singhvi.Singhvi citing judgments on Section 407. Simply transferring matters has implications for the accused. One case that makes out these implications is AR Antulay v. Union of India..Refers to 7-judge Antulay case that overturned the decision of the earlier 5-judge bench verdict..Except in the rarest of rare cases, Your Lordships cannot impede the rights of the accused by transferring the matter: Singhvi .Court breaks for lunch. .Bench re-assembles. Singhvi continues arguments..The only situation alleged is mobocracy. There needs to be a high degree of interference to conclude that justice cannot be done: Singhvi.Court must see totality of the spirit of the High Court Rules, which override other rules of procedure: Singhvi makes a point on listing of the case..Singhvi cites Appellate Side Rules of Calcutta High Court in the context of the maintainability of CBI plea to transfer the case..Transfer applications SHALL be heard by a Single Judge. All cases transferred to HC from subordinate courts shall be placed before Division Bench for determination as to whether there is a question of law. .Application under Art 226 shall not be moved and no prayer for interim order shall be entertained without serving copy of such petition alongwith all annexures upon respondents affected by such interim order: Singhvi reads out Rule 26.Letter addressed to Chief Justice pointing out violation of constitutional or legal right or instances of the legal injury to any person or class of persons, which can form the subject may also be entertained. This is limited to PILs: Singhvi .We are not talking about nuanced issues, we are talking about emails sent to the Court. So there is clear violation of the High Court Rules: Singhvi .Article 227 is to be used very, very sparingly, in the words of the Supreme Court. It does not lie for judicial orders. Independence of subordinate courts is paramount. There should be no interference in their judicial functioning: Singhvi.Singhvi cites Radhe Shyam and Surya Dev Rai judgments of Supreme Court..Article 227 should be used only for purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors: Singhvi reads from Radhe Shyam.Power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion: Singhvi cites Surya Rai.You cannot just walk in on the basis of Article 227 and look to nullify subordinate court orders: Singhvi .Frequent interference by the HC either under Article 226 or 227 with pending civil and at times criminal cases, the disposal of cases by civil and criminal courts gets further impeded causing serious problems in the administration of justice: Singhvi on Radhey Shyam .The core issue remains liberty. When I was on the point of mobocracy, I said Court has powers of reversal/cancellation of bail. But to argue that Your Lordships should use those powers without evidence would be a travesty: Singhvi .There is a very high and rare threshold to cancel bail. Singhvi cites two judgments to back up this argument..Supreme Court held that bail is also linked to reputation in Sukhwant Singh's case (2009): Singhvi .It is a malicious case, mobocracy is a fig leaf to cover up something that should not have happened. There is complete violation of natural justice. There is no better case for bail: Singhvi concludes..Bench rises. Matter to be heard at 11:30 AM tomorrow.

Narada Case: Except in the rarest of rare cases, Court cannot impede rights of accused by transferring matter, AM Singhvi [LIVE UPDATES]

Related Stories