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".

The acquitted accused have alleged that the appeals were not filed in accordance with law.

#2G #2GAppeals

Appeals were listed for hearing at 2.30 PM.

Hearing yet to start.

Hearing begins.

Argue Mr Vijay Aggarwal: Court

I want a clarification..Mr Aggarwal argued before and then I replied to his application. Then Mr Luthra and Mr Hariharan argued.. : ASG Sanjay Jain who appears for the investigating agencies.

Let me hear if he has something new to add: Court

I'm only rejoining. It's my application: Aggarwal who appears for Asif Balwa.

#2G #2GAppeal

I don't understand where he have been travelling.. my prayer was simple. I want the documents. I don't want to go beyond the prayer: Aggarwal

Whether I am entitled to the documents from Central Government or not. Documents were sent via email. I want the documents be sent as per Delhi HC Rules: Aggarwal

Aggarwal refers to rules on filing of documents.

For filing rules, there is no distinction between civil and criminal: Aggarwal

All documents are to be filed through filing counter. I don't understand the email system. The authenticity is doubtful. I will not go by anything that is not on affidavit: Aggarwal

During COVID, everything was through email. But it changed on Aug 28 when SOP was issued by HC: Aggarwal

On appeals also there are Delhi HC Rules. From an order of acquittal, State govt can not direct an appeal when the case is trifling and it involves no erroneous principle of law: Aggarwal

Court repeatedly asks one Mohit to mute his mic which is causing a lot of disturbance.

Is he a learned counsel? Please find out who is Mr Mohit and then we'll take action: Court tells court master

Please see the appointment of Mr UU Lalit.. : Aggarwal

We've gone through it so many time. Tell me orally. It's engrained in my mind: Court

This order has never been shared: Aggarwal

Aggarwal refers to Surpreme Court's order dated 11.04.2010.

This order shows that Prosecutor was appointed by SC. It was only for trial and not for appeal: Aggarwal

SC said that there was public element in the appointment. It was only for Prosecution and not appeal : Aggarwal

Surpreme Court also gave Mr Lalit chance to choose from CBI panel lawyers to assist him : Aggarwal

I'm only on the point that documents should come on affidavit. They have not shown the document on Mr Bhandari also. It is a proposed notification and not the actual notification: Aggarwal

Sanjeev Bhandari filed the appeals on behalf of CBI.

The circumstances under which the approval was granted by Centre is to be looked into by the Court under High Court Rules: Aggarwal

In the whole appeal, there is no footprint of Mr Tushar Mehta: Aggarwal

The date of judgement is 21.12.2017.. Function of Prosecutor ended on this day. Appeal was filed in March 2018: Aggarwal

This was explained very well yesterday: Court

I'm conscious of not repeating myself. I'm only making an argument: Aggarwal

There was no appointment at all for 2G appeals. There was a vacuum till Mr Mehta was appointed. But appeals have no footprint of Mr Mehta: Aggarwal

If these documents had come, I would have continued.. they are giving truncated documents one after the other. This is making me more and more skeptical that something is being masked: Aggarwal

I really thought if I was making an unjustified request..378(2) talks of another sanction..: Aggarwal

You've already argued that 378(2) is akin to 196.. I remember all this: Court

They could have argued section 114 Evidence: Aggarwal

They've argued this: Court

Can there be a chargesheet without a sanction order? Sanction should show application of mind to the Magistrate: Aggarwal

This point has been argued in detail by others: Court

How can a constitutional court be said to have no power to examine sanction: Aggarwal

Aggarwal refers to Delhi HC judgement which lead to a change in CBI Manual.

I appeared before Justice SB Sinha for an arbitration and he asked me if Aggarwal in my name had a single G or two Gs. I said it's 2G : Aggarwal

I want to steal one arguement of Mr DP Singh. Please see the affidavit of Mr VM Mittal : Aggarwal

Mr Mittal was cross examined on various dates. He is Addln Superintendent.. very strange affidavit. He says he is not responsible. It is by advocate. Who is this Advocate? : Aggarwal

Cases get dismissed when affidavit is not proper: Aggarwal

If it is some Advocate/legal advice, that advocate should file the affidavit: Aggarwal

Aggarwal refers to a judgment by Bombay High Court.

Please see my cross examination of Mr Mittal: Aggarwal

It's not relevant for this stage: Court

I only ask for documents.. I'm not seeking any decision as of now. My prayer is only this : Aggarwal

I saw the application by Vinod Goenka. He is seeking central government and Prosecution papers..every presumption is rebuttable: Aggarwal

Aggarwal concludes.

Extraordinary arguements have been made in extraordinary times..one such argument is that appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor has to be in consultation of High Court : ASG Sanjay Jain

For appointment of SPP, Centre need not consult anyone: Jain

Had legislator wanted so, nothing prevented them from providing so. We don't have to apply any special tool of interpretation of Section 24(8) CrPC: Jain

There is not need to look for a hidden meaning: Jain

If in a particular case, high court, in its extraordinary powers, wants SPP to be appointed in consultation with it.. in this case, this controversy has been put to rest by Surpreme Court: Jain

Surpreme court under art 142 appointed a SPP for 2G case: Jain

While I'm getting hold of the judgement that Mr Aggarwal relied upon, I'm putting on screen the Karnataka HC judgement relied upon by Mr Hariharan: Jain

Jain reads the judgement.

Procedure of appointment was not considered worth adjudication by the court in this case : Jain

Jain is referring to Supreme Court's three judge bench order in the case.

For some cases, govt may appoint SPP. CBI cases have been considered as special class of cases. CBI cases are class in themselves and SPP are appointed: Jain

We have to give meaning to the appointment letter. If it uses the word trial, appeal cannot be read into it: Jain

This judgement, so far as its import is concerned, does not say that that SPP has to be appointed in terms of Section 24(1) which requires consultation with High Court : Jain

Section 24 is categorised in categories. Section 24(1) requires High Court consultation. 24(8) does not require High Court consultation: Jain

Jain refers to a Bombay High Court judgement.

It is exclusively in the domain of the central government to appoint an SPP: Jain

Centre or State as the case may be is not answerable to anyone..section 24(8) cannot be clouded by Section 24(1). There is no overlap: Jain

Senior Adv Hariharan requests that the case continue on Monday.

We will continue. I want to finish it off: Court

New things are being argued. We have to reply: Hariharan

Mr Mehta's notification refers to one particular notification being superceded: Jain

This was clarified by Mr DP Singh: Court

Mr Mehta's notification cannot be said to have superceded the notification of Mr Bhandari: Jain

It is a personal allegation against Mr Bhandari that he signed the appeal without application of mind.. he was an accomplished counsel. To say that he was not applied his mind ..: Jain

Sorry, this was not what was argued. It was argued in a different manner: Singh

There is an inherent presumption in favour of the PP who presented the appeal that he was fully aware of what he was doing. Any doubt as regards the same and that govt should produce documents to show that Mr Mehta directed him.. this has already been discussed by P&H HC: Jain

Court cannot get into the adminstrative side..it is none of the concerned of the Respondents.: Jain

The document asking CBI to proceed with the appeal was shown to the court and that is enough: Jain

I'm not joining issues with everything.. n number of arguements have been made: Jain

It is not my case that Mr Bhandari's appointment was for 2G cases. For trial, job of appointment was done by SC..I could not have made appoinment in his favour: Jain

Post trial, field was left open for Central Government to appoint SPP. This is my interpretation: Jain

Surpreme Court has already cleared Mr Mehta's appointment: Jain

If govt appoints one person as SPP thinking that one person would vte utilised for the appeal, it does not mean that all other SPP notifications get washed out. There is no such presumption in law: Jain

Govt having decided to go for appeal, is free to appoint n number of SPP. It may also utilise the services of already existing Prosecutors: Jain

This is what the government has done in this case..: Jain as he points out that apart from his appointment and Tushar Mehta's appointment, notification in favour of senior Adv Sonia Mathur also exists.

How does this pollute the filing of appeal? : Jain

All appointments are in public domain. How can they say they don't have access to a document in public domain: Jain

Within the scope of this application, I was not obligated to oblige them. I shared the documents to satisfy the conscience not the court.. nature of the application has to be seen: Jain

Justice Sethi says he could not hear anything in the last five minutes.

Court proceeds to adjourn the hearing.

Matter to be heard on Monday, October 12.

Aggarwal points out that no formal notice was issued in the application.

Court asks Senior Adv Luthra to send across the judgement he was referring to.

Hearing concludes.