Thread by @barandbench

[Narada Case] #SupremeCourt

Supreme Court to shortly hear appeals by WB CM @MamataOfficial, State law minister @GhatakMoloy and #WestBengal Govt against June 9 order of #CalcuttaHC refusing to take their affidavit on record filed in the CBI transfer plea in #NaradaScam case

Case to begin shortly

#supremecourt #naradacase @MamataOfficial @GhatakMoloy

Senior Adv Vikas Singh appears for the state of West Bengal

Justice Vineet Saran: we just received the list of dates. We have read the file substantially. We have one request in 5 minutes give us the brief background.

#supremecourt #naradacase @MamataOfficial @GhatakMoloy

Justice Saran: Its like a debate, give us a brief idea. Your time starts now

Sr Adv Rakesh Dwivedi for @MamataOfficial and @GhatakMoloy : its about filing counter affidavits. State filed on June 7 and the cm and law minister filed on June 9 in the High Court

Dwivedi: This is a case where effective hearing took place on May 31, 2021. We were impleaded right from beginning in some writ petion which was filed by CBI. There were 4 applications filed by the accused too, accused have already argued. By June 9 only one accused argued

Dwivedi: On May 27, Cal HC had said it will first decide the recall application.

Justice Saran: give us a compilation of all the orders together

Dwivedi: Its all annexed. On May 31 the court had some query from SG Mehta and June 2 an additional affidavit waa filed by CBI and on June 3 CBI finished arguments.

Dwivedi: Kalyan Banerjee, Sr Adv, he filed a personal affidavit due to some allegations on June 3. June 4 to june 6 there was no sitting. WB filed a counter on 7th and we filed it on 9th.

Dwivedi: One prayer by CBI is to transfer the case to HC and the other prayer is about CM and the law minister for being inside the CBI court with a crowd and the impression which went to people is that bail as granted due to presence of state ministers.

Dwivedi: So the next prayer was to delcare the CBI order as null since there was likelihood of bias according to CBI. Charge of obstruction falls as an offence under IPC

Justice Saran: we got it you say counter was necessary for a decision

Dwivedi: HC said we attempt to fill a lacuna by filing it

Justice Saran: we wanted to have a quick overview

Dwivedi: lacuna is an idea in civil jurisdiction and has no relevance in criminal jurisprudence

Dwivedi: here CBI as an agency has to inquire into the truth and has no relevance of lacuna etc

Justice Saran: Thank you. you know what it means from court 29 from Allahabad HC

SG Mehta: on a lighter side it means shut up

Sr Adv Singh for West Bengal: my permission from reply was just a courtesy since it is allowed as per the rules. On May 17 when bail was granted at 3 pm, no averment was made to trial court that High Court was already approached

Justice Saran: we are not going into merits

Sr Adv Singh: On May 27 order, state of WB was impleaded as a party. On May 19 state was not a party

Justice Saran: but @MamataOfficial and @GhatakMoloy were parties?

Dwivedi: yes they were not served till then

Singh: May 27 it was ordered to serve them too

Singh: May 27 states that the court was hearing a recall application.

Justice Saran: was notice issued at any stage?

Singh: I accepted notice on May 27, no time was granted. only as courtesy i asked the HC i need not have asked.

Sr Adv Singh: June 2 CBI filed a affidavit bringing new facts without any liberty

SG Mehta: On May 17 trial court granted bail. Accused could not be produced and we approached the Chief Justice court.

SG Mehta: Then the CJ and Justice Arijit Banerjee heard the matter for 2 hours and then on May 19 i moved an application under Section 407 crpc seeking transfer of trial and to delcare the may 17 proceedings as null, void ab initio

Justice Saran: you are going into merits?

Justice Maheshwari: Mr Singh wanted to touch on merits and we stopped him. We have gone through and backgrounds. Here what we understand is June 9 order where prayer for taking affidavits has been declined. We are confining ourselves

SG: Dates relevant for the affidavit part to show learned AG was heard. Later there was a split order by the CJ and Justice Banerjee

Justice Saran: was state a party?

SG: not till then but the AG was heard.

SG: On May 27 state was joined as a party and notice was issued. AG accepted notice on behalf of state, Chief Minister and law minister. The parties were then heard and granted bail. CM, Law Minsiter& state was served on May 27. May 28 bail was granted & May 31 I started argument

Justice Saran: we know all this come to the main point

SG: When i argued all day, the court asked me to file a chronology of events. That is why i filed the additional affidavit on June 2 and had no points on merits. They have appeared and not disputed the facts

SG: On June 3, when Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued for accused and then the affidavits were filed. I objected since they appeared from the beginning since i completed till then and that is how the affidavit was an attempt to fill the lacuna and was a calculated risk

SG Mehta: the issue is very very limited whether an affidavit has to be taken. There are three options, SLP can be dismissed, slp can be allowed, and third will be we are before a 5 judge bench. you can consider them to make a request before the 5 judge bench

Justice Saran: whether officially or unofficially you all were aware of proceedings from day 1 and you chose to file affidavits on JUNE 7 AND JUNE 9. there could be a presumption that you waived your right. did you file an application filed along with counter to take it on record

Justice Saran: you can file such an application in Calcutta HC and get the matter heard in HC

Justice Maheshwari: on broader aspects when there are specific set of allegations you propose to counter them, we have gone through orders. we don't find fault anywhere

Justice Maheshwari: initially all focus was on bail. the advocate general once stated that he will reply to preliminary objections then SG replied. SG argued for 3 days and then CBI files another reply on June 3.

Justice Maheshwari: What has happened to Respondent number 5? His affidavit is not there. ,Mr Dwivedia and Mr Singh, in the midst of hearing prima facie it could be taken by court that you were not interested in filing a reply and option was waived.

Justice Maheshwari: in the midt of hearing what we presume as a basic principle you were required to at least file am application why it was not filed earlier. all was argued earlier. Thus the HC decided so.

Justice Saran: if you agree with SG's third option we can remand the matter back to HC and we can say you file within 24 hours or 48 hours

Dwivedi: the earlier June 9 order will be hurdle

Justice Saran: it will be heard afresh after the application

SG: Contentions which we raised before the HC can be raised again.

Justice Saran: we will fix a time

Dwivedi: I will not raise any objection whatever i have to say i will then before larger bench

SG: Arguments of all the accused are also over

Justice Saran: it is for them to explain why they are filing the affidavit so late

SG: Suppose HC accepts the affidavit i may have to be given an opportunity to argue on merits

SG: accused should not start a second round of arguments, you can request the Calcutta HC

Justice Saran: We will not request anything. They will only decide the application. We will direct the respondents, all three, to file their application in support of their counter affidavits within 24 hours.

Sr Adv Singh: as a state Mr Mehta is saying I was there, but i was never there.

Justice Saran: we are not on merits

Singh: i was there only because it was said AG be present. but this does not mean CBI can file without an application and we are made to go back

Justice Saran: we are conscious of this. We have gone through it. Its for you to persuade the HC

Singh: those were new facts by CBI. This court will now not evolve a new procedure at this stage.

Sr Adv Singh reads the May 27 order of the Calcutta HC: State of WB was impleaded without a formal notice. Since advance copies was not served to CM and law minister, it was directed that copies be served.

Singh: then application filed seeking recall was decided to be heard first.

Justice Saran: we had indicated that after the preliminary hearing if some consensus arrives then fine. whatever you have said here and objection to June 9 order, you file this application in HC

Singh: this order has to be set aside

Justice Saran: we are doing it already

Justice Saran: serve the advance copies to other side by Sunday so the other side can file a reply by Tuesday

Justice Maheshwari: now this matter is listed on June 29 before the HC. So you file before that

SG: There is efiling

Justice Saran: June 28 is Monday, file it on Monday but serve advance copy to CBI and others on Sunday so that they can reply by Tuesday. June 29 HC will first decide the application de novo and thereafter proceed to hear matter on merits

Dwivedi: SG had earlier mentioned that their reply to our affidavits was ready. I am just informing

#SUPREMECOURT ORDER: @MamataOfficial @GhatakMoloy #NaradaCase

Justice Saran: These 3 pleas challenge the June 9 order of the Calcutta HC. W have heard the parties before us

#SUPREMECOURT ORDER: @MamataOfficial @GhatakMoloy #NaradaCase

Justice Saran: The grievance of the petitioner is affidavits in reply filed by then on June 7 and 9 have not been taken on record for certain reasons assigned in impugned order which is unjustified in law as per them

#SUPREMECOURT ORDER: @MamataOfficial @GhatakMoloy #NaradaCase

Justice Saran: Detailed arguments have been made. SG Mehta has submitted that the order of HC is justified as petitioners have been participating in the proceedings before the HC and by not filing their response..

#SUPREMECOURT ORDER: @MamataOfficial @GhatakMoloy #NaradaCase

Justice Saran: ....we asked whether any application was filed by a petitioner to take the counter affidavit reply on record while proceedings were on. We are informed that no such application was filed by them.

#SUPREMECOURT ORDER: @MamataOfficial @GhatakMoloy #NaradaCase

Justice Saran: we are of the opinion that the petitioners ought to have given an application to take the respective counter affidavits on record specially when the submissions and arguments were going on

#SUPREMECOURT ORDER: @MamataOfficial @GhatakMoloy #NaradaCase

Justice Saran: at this stage the suggestion was made by the court that matter could be remanded to the HC to be decided afresh on the basis of the reasons given in the application which may be filed

#SUPREMECOURT ORDER: @MamataOfficial @GhatakMoloy #NaradaCase

Justice Saran: parties have agreed to this. We dispose off these three appeals with the following directions:

#SUPREMECOURT ORDER: @MamataOfficial @GhatakMoloy #NaradaCase

Justice Saran: 1. In view of the fact that HC is hearing the case on June 29 we direct that the petitioners may file their respective applications in support to bring the counter affidavits filed by ..

#SUPREMECOURT ORDER: @MamataOfficial @GhatakMoloy #NaradaCase

Justice Saran: 1. ....them on June 7 and 9 on record by Monday June 28 after serving advance copies on counsel for CBI and others on or before June 27.CBI can file reply by June 28.

#SUPREMECOURT ORDER: @MamataOfficial @GhatakMoloy #NaradaCase

Justice Saran: We request the Calcutta High Court to first decide the applications of the petitioners herein.

#BREAKING #SUPREMECOURT ORDER: @MamataOfficial @GhatakMoloy #NaradaCase

Justice Saran: 2. We add that since the prejudice is caused by June 9 order, this order shall remain stayed since the applications would be considered afresh.

#SUPREMECOURT ORDER: @MamataOfficial @GhatakMoloy #NaradaCase

Justice Saran: After the applications are decided the HC shall proceed with the matter and decide further course of action.

Sr Adv Singh: Please let us come here in case the order goes against us. Keep this plea pending.

Justice Saran: what remains in this matter. Matter disposed off.

[Narada] Supreme Court sets aside Calcutta High Court order refusing to take on record affidavits of CM, State and Law Minister; remands matter to HC

@DebayonRoy reports

#MamataBanerjee #CalcuttaHighCourt

@GhatakMoloy @MamataOfficial

Read story: bityl.co/7W2T