Thread by @barandbench

#2G: Delhi High Court to shortly begin hearing appeals preferred by CBI and Enforcement Directorate against the acquittal of all accused in 2G Spectrum case.

Justice Brijesh Sethi is hearing the appeals on a day-to-day basis.

#ARaja #2GAppeals

@dir_ed

The appeals are at the stage of 'leave to appeal'.

Yesterday, the Court heard the parties at length on the issue of proper filing of the appeal before the High Court and CBI having the requisite sanction to file the appeal.

#2G #2GAppeal

Hearing begins.

I don't find Mr Sanjay Jain ji: Court

He will join in a while. We have replied to two applications: Adv Ripudaman for CBI

I will argue on Section 378 CrPC: Senior Adv N Hariharan for Reliance Telecom.

I have filed a similar application : Senior Adv ANS Nadkarni for Vinod Goenka

Why have you not filed earlier.. Mr Vijay Aggarwal and Sidharth Luthra have argued very well.. on whether Mr Sajay Jain can argue.. scope of Section 378.. we need not repeat: Court

My application is on application of section 13 (1)( d) Prevention of Corruption Act: Nadkarni

We have give a compilation of judgement. The dispute is regarding the supply of (sanction)documents. We only have an oral response and there is a shifting change. Till we have clarity.. we will not have able to deal with it: Senior Adv Siddharth Luthra for Siddharth Behura.

Senior Adv N Hariharan begins.

Correction: He appears for Surendra Pipara.

The issue of sanction affects everyone. We will continue on arguements on the basis that separate applications by all Respondents will not be filed: Hariharan

There are 3-4 provisions that the court needs to look into. First and foremost, Sec 2(u) CrPC on public prosecutor: Hariharan

Section 24 has two provisions that are important.. 24(1) and 24 (8): Hariharan

2(u) includes Special Public Prosecutor under sec 24(8).. Section 24 (1)speaks of appointment of public prosecutors to prefer an appeal in consultation of High Court. Can notification issued by Centre suffice under Section 24(1)? : Hariharan

Harmonious construction implies that SPP also has to be appointed in consultation of High Court: Hariharan

Hariharan reads Section 25A on Directorate of Prosecution.

Under Section 25A(8), If it is the Advocate General, he is exempted from being answerable to Directorate of Prosecution: Hariharan

In the present case, persons have been appointed as SPP under Section 24(8).. but criteria of Section 24(1) has to be satisfied: Hariharan

Entire thing has to be seen in the scheme of things: Hariharan

Hariharan seeks to distinguish Section 24 from Section 301 CrPC.

Let us look into the truncated papers given by CBI: Hariharan as he reads the appointment notification of Sanjeev Bhandari as SPP.

Bhandari filed the appeal.

This notification cannot help the Prosecution. It does not satisfy the criteria of Section 24 (1). The appointment was not in consultation with the High Court. It does not specify which class of cases Bhandari would be in-charge of: Hariharan

This person cannot file an appeal before teh High Court or appear in any such proceedings: Hariharan

The other proceeding is this leave to appeal. Leave to appeal was filed without the authority of law: Hariharan

At the threshold, the filing of the leave to appeal is under challenge: Hariharan

There are two dates that are relevant. There is a notification dated 16.02.2018: Hariharan as he reads the notification on appointment of SG Tushar Mehta as SPP for 2G cases.

The appointment is under Section 24(8): Hariharan

This appointment had made Mr Mehta as SPP. It is by Central Government but doesn't say that the appointment was in compliance of Section 24(1): Hariharan

Whether HC was consulted in order to appoint an SPP is wanting.. as far Bhandari's notification was concerned, it was a general type of notification and would not even qualify under Sec 24 (1): Hariharan

Passing of Mr Mehta's notification made all other notifications redundant. It said it was in supersession of all other notifications including that of Bhandari's: Hariharan

The next relevant date is of the date of filing on leave to appeal.. it was filed in March 2018: Hariharan

On the date of the filing, Mr Mehta had been appointed as SPP. How is Mr Bhandari filing it when everyone else had been ousted? Where is his authority to file the leave to defend: Hariharan

All the documents are bereft of material particulars: Hariharan

The Notification is very categorical that it is only Mr Mehta who is vested with the power of being SPP. It doesn't say that he would be assisted by xyz: Hariharan

If Me Mehta satisfies the criteria of Section 24 (1), he would be deemed to SPP.. : Hariharan

Deemed to be**

Hariharan refers to Jayalalithaa judgement from Supreme Court.

There was a difference of opinion between Lokur J and Banumathi J. There was a reference to a larger Bench. The larger Bench concurred with Lokur J's view: Hariharan

Hariharan states the procedural background of Jayalalitha case.

Trial was transferred from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka.. Govt of Karnataka did not file an appeal but didn't appoint an Prosecutor. State of Tamil Nadu appointed a Prosecutor. This issue came before SC: Hariharan

All these provisions were examined by the Supreme Court.. it was held that TN appointee did not have the authority to appear as Prosecutor: Hariharan

The SC said that if SPP is to be appointed under Section 24(8), it must be done in consultation with Chief Justice, Kar HC in terms of Section 24(1): Hariharan

Let us examine 378 CrPc in this light : Hariharan

Word used in 378(2) is public prosecutor who would satisfy the provisions of Section 24 (1). As per 2(u), SPP is subsumed under Section 24(1): Hariharan

Hariharan refers to the dissenting opinion of Justice Banumathi.

She said that for a case, SPP would continue to appear before any court without any separate authority unless the same is revoked. She upheld the SPP appointed : Hariharan

Now I'll come to Full Bench: Hariharan

Hariharan reads the Full Bench judgement.

Section 24(1) has restricted the appointment of PP for High Court: Hariharan reads.

SPP was appointed for trial. He sought right to audience in appeals. Justice Lokur was clear that such person must satisfy the criteria of Section 24(1): Hariharan

Do you mean to say that appointment of Mr Mehta was not in consonance with law ?: Court

Mr Bhandari, Mr Mehta or Mr Jain do not satisfy the criteria under 2(u), Section 24(1) and Section 24(8): Hariharan

Hariharan states that to get a clearer picture on the manner of appointment, it was important that all documents are shared.

Hariharan concludes.

Adv DP Singh for Reliance Telecom begins.

I agree with some arguements. I will read the appointment of Mr Mehta differently: Singh

The supersession was only with regards the notification dated Feb 8, 2018..but it doesn't mean that the appeal was filed correctly: Singh

Doesn't make a difference. He was still appointed as SPP: Hariharan

The 8 Feb Notification named Mr Mehta as Advocate instead of Senior Advocate.

I'm on the appointment of Mr Sanjeev Bhandari: Singh

2G is a class of case. There was a 2G court. Like there is a court which dealt only with coal cases: Singh

Not even SPP , State had appointed PP and addl PP only for 2G: Singh

There are more than 600 grounds taken.. there is an affidavit by VM Mittal, Addl Superintendent of Police. It says appeal is based on legal advice of Advocate. Which Advocate?: Singh

At no stage did any document reach Mr Bhandari.. PP is not a post office. He has to verify the contents. Let the ASG show to this court that there has ever been any communication to Mr Bhandari for scrutiny of appeal. Basic thing is application of mind: Singh

Recently, Delhi Riots notification was issued. It has a mix of all lawyers- designated seniors and otherwise..a senior adv has to be assisted by somebody. When Mr UU Lalit was appointed, a PP and Addln PP was appointed by State: Singh

If it is Mr Bhandari, there has to be his appointment after judgement was passed. His appointment is 2014. Bhandari was never appointed for this class of case: Singh

Appeal was not settled by Senior Adv..it was not settled by Bhandari.. : Singh

Assuming Mr Jain has been authorised by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.. though there is no specific authorization for this case. It still can't be applied to the filing of the appeal by Mr Bhandari: Singh

The filing itself is bad due to lack of authority with persons filing this appeal: Singh

DP Singh concludes.

For the purpose of Section 378(2), Centre has to direct CBI.. there is no notification showing this direction: Senior Adv Nadkarni

Direction is mandatory. It shows application of mind. Even before granting leave, court has to ascertain if appeal has been filed by CBI or has Central Govt directed them to file it: Nadkarni

Is Mr Sanjay Jain ji here?: Court

He is on his legs before another court: Counsel

Please give me 15 mins tomorrow: Vijay Aggarwal

ASG Sanjay Jain joins the hearing.

Court sums up the submissions made by Respondents for ASG Jain.

Senior Adv Luthra once again presses for supply of documents.

ASG Jain asks Adv Ripudaman to share whatever has been received.

Please give it on an affidavit: Luthra

Court asks ASG Jain if he wants to respond to the judgment relied upon by Senior Adv Hariharan.

I'll respond tomorrow: ASG Jain

Court adjourns hearing for the day.

Matter to continue tomorrow.

2G Spectrum: Delhi HC hears appeals by CBI, ED against acquittal of accused [LIVE UPDATES]

barandbench.com/news/litigatio…