The same bench will also hear Singh’s plea seeking to quash the FIR registered against him under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Khambatta: I have serious objections to the maintainability.
This complaint is by Anup Dange. With respect to this complaint, a preliminary enquiry was launched by the state. The investigation with DGP of Maharashtra Sanjay Pandey.
Khambatta: Affidavit of June 2021 filed by Maharashtra government - we have stated that the enquires and the investigations are transferred away from Pandey.
Khambatta: So in a sense this petition has come to an end. But Singh wants to pursue.. The gravamen of the charge in the petition was that the DGP has been directed to initiate a preliminary enquiry against Singh in terms of the provisions in the Service rules.
Khambata: The SC has categorically held that it will not be open for litigants to approach the High Court directly without approaching the tribunals even if there is a challenge to the vires.
Khambata: These pronouncements go further than the doctrine of alternate remedy.
They are pronouncement of law - that HC will not entertain if the tribunal can cover those cases.
Breach of service regulations is challenged in a 226 petition in this case.
Khambata: There is some broad and vague claim that there is some malafide in this investigation because of the letter against Deshmukh.
This is strange - the Param Bir Singh defence.
This allegation made, does not immunize you from investigations or allegations.
Khambata: This will be used as a defence, that you first make allegations and then you will be immunised.
This FIR of Dange was before the letter written to the CM.
Khambata: And this petition objects to Pandey investigating, who has recused himself. So really nothing remains in the petition except of this maintainability.
Khambata: On the maladies, the fact that the complaint is lodged in Feb 2021, it is long before the letter sent. So this is a complete bogus case to create a cloud to stop legitimate enquiries.
Seervai: Exfacie this matter is not maintainable. There is a complete, adequate, equally efficacious remedy available to the petitioner before my lords. And therefore in supplement and adopting my friends arguments.
Seervai: We had discussed and kept the affidavit ready if for any reason this petition is to be heard on merits.
I will be candid, my client has an impeccable reputation and I will prove that this petition is to besmirch that.
Seervai: If Jethmalani has convinced my lords to hear the matter on merits then I may be given time to respond.
Court: If a party approaches the Tribunal to challenge the malafides, why can’t the Tribunal go into that?
Seervai: It can. Due respect, it is a rhetorical question!
Seervai: If Tribunal can go into constitutional validity, it can surely go into malafides!
Khambata: The allegations in the FIR are grave, and it is a fairly detailed complaint. It is extraordinarily serious offences made out. No one is above the law. Not even the former Mumbai police commissioner.
Khambata: This is a sordid affair. For sometime there was parallel proceeding between High Court and Supreme Court. There was oral assurance of amendment but we do not know if it was done.
ASG Anil Singh states that he has joined the meeting as CBI is made a party.
ASG: Now it is for Mr. Khambata and Mr. Jethmalani to argue in the matter on the maintainability. I will address the Court on merits if it comes to that.
Jethmalani: Before Milords decide that, what needs to be decided is what the Maharashtra government has done. Were these two enquiries administrative? If they are then I am out on maintainability. If they are not, then the maintainability argument goes.
Jethmalani: Both these orders of April 23 are issued hastily without application of mind.
It is obvious from the circumstances that it was issued out of confusion and vendetta.
Because Singh who was to quietly go off to the DGP was forced to do it…
Jethmalani: The motivation and reason for the April 21 order shows why this order was issued.
The second question arises that some police officers were involved in the Antilla incident, the question arose how did Singh fail to control his subordinates.
Jethmalani: To say that the sitting home minister is guilty to extort money from liquor with evidence to the CM, does not tarnish the image of the government, it tarnishes image of the corrupt individual.
Jethmalani: Notice Pandey is DGP of the State, the highest police officer in the State.
You appoint DGP for both enquiries. You call this a preliminary enquiry which is a criminal law term. How is this an administrative enquiry?
Jethmalani submits that the State Home Ministry’s order initiating the enquiry against him was in retaliation to Singh’s letter who he termed a “whistleblower”.
Jethmalani: The continuance of Sanjay Pandey as DGP shows the State is protecting Sanjay Pandey, which shows that what Pandey is saying on the tapes is true because a responsible, free from blame state will distance themselves from Pandey.
Jethmalani: The fact that there are allegations against the State government shows that they have no defence to those and hence they are protecting Pandey.
Jethmalani: Khambata raised a point that the enquiry is vitiated but Pandey has been removed from the enquiry so the grievance is redressed… It is not as simple as that.
Jethmalani: What is happening in Maharashtra I do not want to be rhetorical. There is an extortion racket going on in the State by the Home Minister, there is money for transfer and posting.
Jethmalani: Th enquiry was to try and find a way - first by persuasion to withdraw the vital letter (which was fulcrum of all HC and SC proceedings).
Pandey offered me a defence that I may say that the prequel to my letter was a grave and sudden provocation.
Jethmalani: The fact of the matter is, we have got rid of Pandey. We are not saying he is a judge in his own cause or some personal animosity…
The argument is not vitiated because of this. This has been brought at the behest of the State government.
Khambata: I just need a few minutes to respond on the maintainability.
The enquiry initiated by Chakrabarty does not mention Section 32.
Khambata: Secondly, his case in the petition is that this enquiry is administrative enquiry and should not include Section 32.. the exact opposite of what he has argued!
Khambata: The petitioner in his petition, sworn on oath, states that the enquiry is an administration, how then, can Section 32 be invoked.
The case is crystal clear that it is administrative enquiry, departmental enquiry.
That is the only case before your lordships.
Khambata: If that is the case, then the Supreme Court has said in several judgments that the writ court cannot go into it!
It is on a higher footing than what is put forth by Mr. Seervai.
This is an interdiction from the SC, not just an alternate remedy..
Khambata: My learned friend relied on conversations, and my submission is at this stage on maintainability, that was not unnecessary.
He is trying to take your lordships into the transcript without going through investigation.
#BombayHighCourt is hearing plea filed by Rashmi Shukla seeking quashing of the FIR registered by #MumbaiPolice against unknown persons for leaking information pertaining to police postings in the State.
ASG Anil Singh appearing for CBI submits two letters written by #CBI to the Mumbai Police seeking certain documents pertaining to Shukla for their investigation.
ASG submits that the documents which have been sought from the administration were not handed over.
Court: Mr. Singh, why don’t you file a short application with these documents..
We get your sum and substance that the State is not co-operating..
Justice SK Kaul led bench of #SupremeCourt hears plea filed by Yatin Oza against the decision of the Gujarat High Court to revoke his senior designation and also the HC judgment holding him guilty of contempt of court for his statements #SupremeCourt#YatinOza
AM Singhvi: Mr Nikhil informed that it has been kept for directions only. 9 months plus have lapsed. There has been bigger punishment than any other punishment. To be out of town and out of practice is easier, than to be in the same city where you’ve practiced.
Delhi High Court to hear petition seeking directions to Twitter to comply with Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021
On the last date of hearing, the Court had directed "interim" officers appointed by Twitter Inc under IT Rules, 2021 to file affidavits stating that they will be responsible for dealing with any grievances raised.
Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya appears for Twitter. Two affidavits have been filed as regards Chief Compliance Officer and Grievance Officer. We have indicated that we will no longer use "interim" for the officers.
Delhi High Court to hear plea by PayPal challenging a Financial Intelligence Unit order imposing a penalty of Rs 96 lakh on it for not registering itself as a “reporting entity” under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
#SupremeCourt is hearing the plea filed by @amazon against #DelhiHighCourt March 22 order which stayed Single Judge’s order restraining @FutureGroup from going ahead with the 24,713 crore merger with Reliance Retail
Sr Adv Harish Salve: please take a look at the Raffles Design International vs Educomp Professional Education delivered by Delhi High Court in October 2016
#SupremeCourt to shortly deliver judgment on a plea by Kerala Govt to withdraw the assembly ruckus case where LDF legislators including education minister V Sivankutty are named as accused.
V Sivankutty, KT Jaleel, EP Jayarajan, Kunhammad Master, CK Sadasivan and K Ajith are named as accused of indulging in vandalism in the assembly
The plea is against a Kerala High Court order which had dismissed the State's petition against an order of rejection by the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court at Thiruvananthapuram, seeking permission to withdraw prosecution against the accused, including sitting ministers.