The Supreme Court today made some stern observations against advocate Vineet Dhanda while hearing his petition relating to the PNB Scam..A Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud was hearing a petition filed by Dhanda seeking, inter alia, the deportation of diamantaire Nirav Modi..When the matter came up for hearing today, Attorney General for India KK Venugopal raised an objection, saying that an investigation is already in progress in the said case..The Bench, being satisfied with the contentions of the Attorney General, seemed inclined to dismiss his case..However, at this juncture, Dhanda argued that the matter needs to be addressed, and prayed that the Court issue notice to the parties. He also said that the AG is defending the government by objecting to his petition..To this, Chief Justice Misra observed,.“Attorney General needs to be heard in all cases and it is not necessary that he is defending the Government every time.”.Dhanda also submitted that while a person who takes a minimal loan amount is hounded, people of big stature easily run away with thousands of crores of rupees..In reply, the Bench sharply remarked that the Court is not entitled to address big speeches and further observed that it will let the government carry on its investigation..At this point, Dhanda argued that the recurrence of such scams proves that the investigating agencies are ineffective..Chandrachud J stated that the way in which the petitioner is putting forth his submissions proves that the matter is only filed for gaining publicity..Dhanda retorted that he does not need publicity and that he would withdraw his petition if the Bench feels that it was filed to gain publicity. He also contended that the issue involves larger public interest..“What publicity?…(unclear). I Have been practicing here for 16 years. I don’t need any publicity.”.Chandrachud J. maintained his stance, and also stated that a matter should not be filed based on newspaper reports, but should contain legal issues..The Bench also observed that it cannot interfere when the government is already investigating the matter..After recording the submissions of the parties, the Bench adjourned the petition for March 16..Image courtesy:.Vineet Dhanda
The Supreme Court today made some stern observations against advocate Vineet Dhanda while hearing his petition relating to the PNB Scam..A Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud was hearing a petition filed by Dhanda seeking, inter alia, the deportation of diamantaire Nirav Modi..When the matter came up for hearing today, Attorney General for India KK Venugopal raised an objection, saying that an investigation is already in progress in the said case..The Bench, being satisfied with the contentions of the Attorney General, seemed inclined to dismiss his case..However, at this juncture, Dhanda argued that the matter needs to be addressed, and prayed that the Court issue notice to the parties. He also said that the AG is defending the government by objecting to his petition..To this, Chief Justice Misra observed,.“Attorney General needs to be heard in all cases and it is not necessary that he is defending the Government every time.”.Dhanda also submitted that while a person who takes a minimal loan amount is hounded, people of big stature easily run away with thousands of crores of rupees..In reply, the Bench sharply remarked that the Court is not entitled to address big speeches and further observed that it will let the government carry on its investigation..At this point, Dhanda argued that the recurrence of such scams proves that the investigating agencies are ineffective..Chandrachud J stated that the way in which the petitioner is putting forth his submissions proves that the matter is only filed for gaining publicity..Dhanda retorted that he does not need publicity and that he would withdraw his petition if the Bench feels that it was filed to gain publicity. He also contended that the issue involves larger public interest..“What publicity?…(unclear). I Have been practicing here for 16 years. I don’t need any publicity.”.Chandrachud J. maintained his stance, and also stated that a matter should not be filed based on newspaper reports, but should contain legal issues..The Bench also observed that it cannot interfere when the government is already investigating the matter..After recording the submissions of the parties, the Bench adjourned the petition for March 16..Image courtesy:.Vineet Dhanda
