Thread by @barandbench

#SupremeCourt bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan, to hear UP govt's plea to transfer Mukhtar Ansari from Punjab to Ghazipur Jail. The UP government submits that serious charges are pending in the state against Ansari

Submission by Solicitor-General yersterday:

State of Punjab has stated it has nothing to do with Mukhtar Ansari:

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi requests the Amazon Prime head Aparna Purohit's matter to be taken up

Bench calls for Senior Adv Dushyant Dave appearing for State of Punjab

Senior Adv Dave reads the medical report of Ansari.

Dave: There is sufficient medical evidence available on record to show that decisions taken by state of Punjab is based on cogent evidence. Mr Tushar Mehta made pot shots against us and all newspapers carried it. We have nothing to do with Ansari. He is another citizen criminal

Dave: Voice samples were matched after FIR was registered. How Ansari made a call from jail is state of UPs problem. Not ours. How such a criminal got a phone in jail ?

Dave: any decision by your lordship agreeing with State of UP will lead to not only rewriting the Constitution and open a pandoras box.

Dave: For a state to come under Article 32 defeats the objective for which the Article was incorporated by BR Ambedkar. Ambedkar had stated that without the Article it will render the Constitution to nullity.

Dave: Entire CrPC is against Mr Mehta's argument. Suddenly Article 32 plea cannot be filed and question the medical report and pick up Ansari from Punjab. I beseech your lordship to not grant the relief being prayed by state of UP

Dave: State has no citizen and has no fundamental rights to enforce but even then it expects this Court to disobey the Constitution of India.

Dave: Constitutional framers did not envisage that cases pending in trial courts can be transferred from one state to another.

Dave: We are still in the investigation state and investigation cannot be transferred like this. Chargesheet has been filed and probe has been going on. It will need some time. Cases in UP is pending since 15 years against Ansari. Punjab case was registered in 2019

Dave: I can say a lot about UP but I will not since we are officers of the court. It appears that all judicial officers in UP has been satisfied by the medical reports submitted by Ansari. No one is interested in culmination of these cases in UP

Dave: Writ Petition by UP not maintainable under Article 32 and Sectiom 406 CrPC.
#SupremeCourt

Senior Adv Mukul Rohatgi: There is no way that a state can move a Article 32 plea. That is elementary and we need not spend time on that. Section 139A is not applicable. Section 406 can apply for transfer one criminal from one subordinate Court in one state to other.

Rohatgi: Criminal case starts at cognizance. But investigation is not applicable under Section 406. This case in Punjab is only investigation.

Rohatgi: Section 406 has to be used in gravest of cases not for political cases or one's with ulterior motives. Such things happen during riot, calamity etc. There are umpteen judgments on the same.

Rohatgi: because of my political affiliation to a party in opposition I am being targeted. My co-accused was encountered. UP has an axe to grind against Punjab and Court should not allow shoulders of #SupremeCourt to be used to fire a gun. This should not be allowed

Rohatgi: I had appeared in all VC courts. The orders of such hearings are also added. Since video hearings began I have been acquitted in three cases in UP. Thus trial in UP is going on and there is no way it is being hampered. I will be done away with in UP

Rohatgi: Article 142 cannot be invoked if there are provisions available in statute. Supreme Court had held that a lawyers license to practice cannot be taken away under 142 when it was governed by the Advocates Act.

Solicitor-General: On the prisoners act point, there was a case where accused was sought to be transferred from one state to another. It was argued that collectively an accused cannot be tried etc.

Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta: I concede that state does not have remedy under Article 32 but as a guardian of fundamental rights of citizens I can espouse that right before you under Article 32

#SupremeCourt

SG: One of the judgments note that state in such cases espouse the cause of the victim and takes their position. The greater is community interest the greater is our responsibility. Mr Dave was in my position in this judgment I am citing.

#SupremeCourt

SG cites another judgment which held that a convict or prisoner can be transferred one prison to another even if jail manual does not provide for it. This is in case rule of law is violated.

SG: I represent the victims and society. We are responsible. He is facing several FIRs and 13 criminal trials.

SG: If video conferencing is sufficient mode in all cases then I don't think Vijay Mallya is needed here. He can appear here from the UK

SG: for video conferencing Allahabad High Court had made rules for such hearings. So the field is occupied and he can then approach that Court after transfer.

Judgment reserved.

[Mukhtar Ansari] State can espouse cause of citizens who suffer violation of fundamental rights through Article 32 plea: SG Tushar Mehta, Supreme Court reserves judgment

#MukhtarAnsari #SupremeCourt #UttarPradesh

Read full story: bit.ly/2MJIoe8