Abhishek Manu Singhvi argues that the SC on August 21 had ordered for a hearing on Friday, August 23. Prosecution should not have acted in a way (by arresting Chidambaram on August 21) to render a judicial order ineffective.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta was present in the Court when an order for hearing was passed. His client (CBI) should not have acted in this way then, Singhvi.
#Breaking: Supreme Court dismisses SLP filed by Chidambaram against Delhi High Court order denying him protection from arrest as far as CBI case is concerned. Court says matter is now infructuous.
Chidambaram granted liberty to move appropriate Court for regular bail
Supreme Court now hears the SLP filed in relation to the cases filed by ED against P Chidambaram.
Sibal questions the handing over of certain documents in a sealed cover to the Delhi High Court. He says that P Chidambaram was not aware of these documents/notes.
If they discovered some material between the time FIR was filed and I was arrested, they should have summoned me and interrogated me. They cannot spring it like a surprise in the Court, Sibal.
The Will that was spoken about by SG in the earlier hearing is in public domain. The attachment of properties is known. They cannot just make statements like this. ED's only case is that he is not cooperating. This is not fair, this is media trial, Sibal
SG has contended discovery of large number of mails, bank accounts, among other things. All this was never out to Chidambaram. He was examined by ED thrice and only once by the CBI. Neither agencies put any of this before him.
They have to clarify when these documents and notes were discovered. If it was before questioning, why didn't they confront him and if it was after questioning, then why was he not called again, Sibal
SG says Chidambaram is being evasive but the Court should peruse the questions that were put to him and the responses given by him to ascertain if he was being evasive.
The case is that Karti Chidambaram used his relationship with P Chidambaram to influence public servants to secure ex-post facto FIPB approvals for the downstream investment in INX media, Sibal
The CA Bhaskar Raman got bail, Karti Chidambaram got bail, Indrani and Peter Mukherjea are on default bail and no sanctions have been sought for the six government secretaries till now, Sibal
P Chidambaram is being made vicariously liable. The ED's case seems to be that since he's Karti's father, he must be involved... There is no chargesheet filed naming him so prima facie no offence has been committed, Sibal.
Sibal cites the judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh on the issue of right of an accused for anticipatory bail.
If there is a money trail, there must be documents and the source of the monies traceable. What are they trying to find out? First probe, find out and then seek custody, Sibal
If something is found after probing documents, it should be put before the accused for him to give an explanation. Here it's a one way street where documents are produced in Court but not put before accused, Sibal
Great ignominy and humiliation is attached to an arrest. The moment someone is arrested, you destroy that man. You make believe that the man js guilty. That is what is happening here, Sibal
On the Delhi High Court, Sibal says what is the application of mind of the Judge when certain paragraphs are a word for word, comma for comma copy of the note submitted by the SG?
That is exactly my objection that while he (SG) can put whatever he wishes before the Court but it should be put before me first. These are the procedural issues that need to be addressed in a case which involves personal liberty, Sibal
There is also another serious issue that why was the order reserved for seven month? It took him (Justice Sunil Gaur of the HC) 7 months to decide that there was gravity in the matter, Sibal
Their case is, and it is mentioned in the judgment, that Chidambaram has been evasive during questioning, then Your Lordships must ask for transcripts and decide if he was being evasive, Sibal
They (investigating agencies) are saying that they have cogent evidence against the petitioner and at the same time they say that evidence is yet to be unearthed. Then what is this cogent evidence then? - Sibal
They are claiming that there is apprehension of tampering of evidence. Tampering of what? Properties situated outside? Or bank accounts? If that tampering is possible, my arms must be really long, Sibal
Supreme Court to continue hearing the case tomorrow at 12 noon. P Chidambaram to file a rejoinder to the ED's affidavit. Interim protection from arrest granted to Chidambaram in the ED case to continue till tomorrow.
All Advocate Generals of all states in Supreme Court , Court 1 today
CJI Surya Kant: You are all here. There are questions of liberty, right to life etc. State writes to HC Chief justice that court needed for sc st act. Then another letter asking for Nia Court. Same special court becomes the nia court. Then family cases. So the special court becomes a mockery.
ASG Aishwarya Bhati: State has to provide land and building. 1 crore recurring fund also needed for each of these court.
CJI: Day to day trial has to take place in these courts.
CJI: This court has to be in adjoining, next building or closest to the place where bar members are. Ideally it should be in the same complex. It has to be one court. Immediately one court needed. Then additional manpower will be needed. So we need trained and experienced judicial officers and there will be temporary increase in higher judicial services cadre strength also.
Jharkhand: There are 790 UAPA cases pending. All principal district judges are dealing with UAPA Cases
CJi: this is what is creating the problem. Hardly they will be on bail
Justice Bagchi: just see how many are undertrials at the moment. That is our concern. Not the state or centre.
CJI: the 24 courts you have are not special courts also.
Justice Bagchi: do you know the burden of the principal district judge. Is the judge dealing with only UAPA
[Md Abdur Raheman vs State of Odisha] Accused who is facing trial for recruiting youth to join Al Qaeda
Sr Adv: Trial in Odisha are on the same charges and the same material. He has already served 10 years when maximum is 7.5 years.
CJI: but look at his association with one of the most dreaded organsiations in the world. Society also deserves to live peacefully.
Sr Adv: But how can he be tried twice for the same offence?
CJI: yea that is true. He can serve only the maximum period not beyond that.
ASG Natraj: we will finish the trial in 6 months.
CJI: please ensure that state public prosecutor, one dedicated one has to be in court always for trial in this case. We will fix a timeline of 2 months. We will direct day to day hearing.
CJI: the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7.5 years by Patiala House court. He has undergone that sentence. There is another 2015 FIR registered in Cuttack, Odisha.
CJI: He had approached District court and high court to release him on bail. Odisha HC denied him bail. Petitioner says that he is in custody for more than 10 years. He says since sentence in Delhi FIR is over he deserves to be released on bail.
#Breaking
Delhi HC to pronounce today it's judgement on Arvind Kejriwal and others' plea seeking recusal of justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in excise policy case.
Judgemen at 2:30PM.
@AamAadmiParty @ArvindKejriwal
Update: After Kejriwal files a rejoinder to CBI's written statement, the Court takes it on record as written submissions.
Justice Sharma says the order will be pronounced at 4:30 PM.
Arvind Kejriwal to appear today before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma and request the judge to take his rejoinder on record.
According to AAP's legal team, Kejriwal will appear at 10:30 AM.
@ArvindKejriwal @SanjayAzadSln
In his rejoinder, Kejriwal has said that the CBI, in its written submissions, "resorted to speculation, imputation of motives, rhetorical alarmism, and
scandalous allegations," but did not respond to his allegations of bias on the part of Justice Sharma since her children are on the government's panel.
"It is very unfortunate that the CBI is willing to malign the entire judiciary in order to have this matter heard before only one Hon’ble Judge," Kejriwal says.
Supreme Court to hear today plea by INC leader Pawan Khera challenging its stay on the transit anticipatory bail granted to him by the Telangana High Court in a forgery and criminal conspiracy case
Bench: Justices JK Maheshwari and AS Chandurkar
The top court had stayed the relief granted to Khera by the High Court on April 15.
SG Tushar Mehta (for Assam): there are new pleadings in the application.
Sr. Adv. AM Singhvi (for Khera): your lordships have been persuaded to pass an ex parte order. It’s a transit bail. It expires today. The court opens on Monday.
Court: see the document on page number 98. This document (Aadhar) you filed. On the basis of this document you are saying your address is different…
Singhvi: I am asking only for transit bail to be extended to Tuesday.
Court: why in Telangana? Why not in Assam?
Singhvi: I want transit bail till Tuesday so I can approach Assam. Telangana petition was filed in a hurry. In the arguments it was pointed out and a correct document was filed. My wife is an MLA candidate in Telangana. Her affidavit was filed on the same day. That is not pointed out. 100 police men are sent to Nizamuddin. There’s article 21 in this country. He doesn’t tell you that the correct document has been filed. This is all prejudice.
DAY 5: Supreme Court nine-judge bench to resume hearing reference arising from Sabarimala review pleas
Parties opposing the reference to continue submissions today
#Sabarimala #SupremeCourt
Adv MR Venkatesh appears for Atmatam Trust
#Sabarimala
Adv MR Venkatesh: My Lords, the first thing I would like to say is that the word religion in Article 25, religious practice in Article 25(2)(a), Hindu religious institutions under Article 25(2)(b), religious denomination under Article 26, and matters of religion under Article 26(2)(b), are all indeterminate and probably incapable of being defined. The word denomination, for instance, can be traced to the word denominatio in the Latin language, fortified by medieval Christianity, which allows the word denomination to be rooted to a particular denomination within the Christian religion, and it was picked up by the Irish Constitution, and we have adopted it.
So it has huge foreign roots, and to this extent these words have their own limitations in terms of our understanding. What gets compounded is that while Articles 25 to 28 have the roots of Article 44 of the Irish Constitution, Article 25(2)(a) in the way it is being read, and Article 25(2)(b), have no international precision. In that sense, Article 25(2)(a) and Article 25(2)(b) are sui generis and are rooted in Indian conditions, tailor made for certain Indian conditions. This requires interpretation and proper intervention of this Court.
Moreover, if there is a definition for denominational temples and a certain class of temples falls into denominational temples, then what happens to non denominational temples. Do they have no rights. Do they have no protection under the Constitution. And how do we deal with non denominational temples. The way it has been interpreted by law, and I will demonstrate very shortly, the problem is that all this becomes a sort of public place, which is equated to a car, railway station or a bus stand, where anybody can enter and anybody can leave.
And then it would seem that the Jehovah Witness case has been relied upon heavily in the formulation of Article 25. Originally proponents of what I would say is the doctrine under Article 25(1), which deals only with what I would say is that even on a mere reading, as Mr Sundaraman pointed out, it should shock the conscience of the Court.