[Narada Case] West Bengal govt, State Law Minister move Supreme Court against refusal by Calcutta High Court to take their affidavits on record

West Bengal government and State Law Minister Moloy Ghatak have separately moved the Supreme Court challenging a June 9 order of the Calcutta High Court order refusing to take their reply affidavits on record in the transfer plea filed by Central Bureau of Investigation (CB) in the Narada case. .The plea will be heard on Friday by a Bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubhramanian.The plea stated that the rights of the State government and the Law Minister shouldn’t be closed "especially when CBI had been allowed to file additional affidavits at different stages.".The Calcutta High Court in its June 9 order had noted that, "they (CM, law minister and state) have waited for the arguments in the case to be substantially completed before seeking to place on record their pleadings in response." "It is nothing else but filling the lacunae or supporting the accused. That is why, even the learned Counsels appearing for the accused are also supporting the prayer made by the State for taking these belated affidavits on record," said the High Court. Appearing for Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee before Calcutta High Court, Senior Counsel Rakesh Dwivedi had submitted that if the affidavit is ignored, justice will be hampered. “Apologies for the inconvenience, but it is a question of justice. 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 CBI shy away from bringing out the facts?”However, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta had strongly objected to the acceptance of the affidavits, claiming they were filed after he completed his arguments..The Calcutta High Court had accepted the SG's argument. ."The respondents concerned have taken a calculated risk in not filing their affidavits at the right time, hence, now they cannot be allowed to do so at their own whims and fancies, whenever they wish to do the same. Urgency of the matter could be appreciated on behalf of the accused, who were in custody but it cannot apparently be on behalf of the State, hence, if the State or other persons impleaded by the CBI wanted to file their response, time could have been sought at that time and not when the arguments are at an advanced stage," the High Court order said.