Thread by @OfficialSauravD

#StoryAlert 🚨

Our analysis of 8 politically sensitive cases before benches either consisting of Justice Bela Madhurya Trivedi or presided over by her reveals violations of the 2017 Supreme Court convention and Rules. A 🧵 

Link- article-14.com/post/contrary-…

The 2017 Handbook of the Supreme Court says cases should be retained before the senior judge before whom the case was first listed or listed before a judge hearing a similar case.

Despite this, 8 politically sensitive cases were shifted before Justice Bela Trivedi, in violation.

The 8 politically sensitive cases are:

1. Umar Khalid’s bail plea.
2. Petitions challenging UAPA provisions
3. Tamil Nadu govt’s investigation against former CM Edappadi Palaniswami
4. FIR Quashing petition by former CM of Andhra Chandrababu Naidu

5. Jailed DMK Minister Senthil Balaji’s medical bail plea
6. Andhra CID’s challenge against grant of regular bail to Chandrababu Naidu
7. Bail plea of Bhima-Koregaon accused Mahesh Raut
8. CBI’s investigation against Deputy CM of Karnataka DK Shivakumar

All these cases were either listed before a bench consisting of Justice Trivedi or more seriously, shifted before a bench headed by Justice Trivedi.

The CJI, as master of the roster, is responsible for allocation of cases. However, as Sr. Advocate Dushyant Dave said, the CJI…

…has no powers to *shift* cases from one bench to other, unless the first presiding judge recuses or retires.

However, none of the judges who first led a bench in these 8 politically sensitive cases retired or recused. Yet, the cases were *shifted* before Trivedi J. Why?

My story details what happened in some of the politically sensitive cases that shifted before Justice Trivedi. For instance, DMK Minister Senthil Balaji’s medical bail was rejected based on Google search results. Read to know what happened in Dep CM DK Shivakumar’s case.

I will detail one of the cases here—Umar Khalid’s bail plea.

The case was first listed before Justice AS Bopanna-led bench. When Justice PK Mishra recused, Bopanna J. passed an order the case to be listed in a different combination of bench and gave a specific date for listing.

Note that Bopanna did not recuse and did not ask it to be put before some other bench. He simply asked the registry to list it before him when Mishra was not sitting with him.

Yet, the case was shifted to Justice Aniruddha Bose-led bench, of which Justice Trivedi was a part.

Interestingly, the bail again shifted before Justice Trivedi-led bench, where she is the senior judge. The senior judge has more influence on court judgements than the junior judge on the bench.

There was no explanation why the case was shifted although it violates rules.

What is even more interesting is how the challenges to UAPA shifted to Justice Trivedi-led bench.

After Khalid’s bail plea was shifted to Trivedi bench, he filed a writ petition challenging provisions of UAPA law. The old petitions on the same subject were pending before the…

…Chief Justice’s court and before Justice Sanjiv Khanna’s court. Ideally, and as is the rule and convention, Khalid’s UAPA challenge ought to have been tagged with the old cases and made it to the Chief Justice’s court.

But no. The case was listed before Bose and Trivedi bench.

Once before them, the bench ordered his petition to be tagged with the older petitions. Rules demand and logic demands that the new matters are tagged with old matters. Yet, the old matters were pulled out from CJI’s court and Khanna J.‘s court and listed before Bose/Trivedi.

So now all UAPA challenges were before Bose led bench, which consisted Justice Bela Trivedi.

Interestingly, the bench, where Trivedi did most of the work, ordered that Khalid’s bail would be heard along with these challenges to UAPA law.

And before whom was Khalid’s bail plea?

Justice Trivedi-led bench.

So all the UAPA challenges made their way to Justice Trivedi led bench.

“The undemocratic nature of the powers of the master of the roster is not purposeful. It is to decide the outcome of the case,” former Madras HC Justice K Chandru.

Questions sent to the Chief Justice of India did not elicit a response.

“A clear principle needs to be followed that the case remains with the presiding judge until he or she retires. This was the principle that was being followed ever since,” Justice Madan Lokur told me.

All is not well in the Supreme Court.

“The shifting of cases from one Bench to another is wrong and sends a wrong signal. It should definitely be avoided,” said Lokur.

Shifting of cases is very serious. Some lawyers told me that it’s “akin to withdrawing cases from a judge”.

These cases raise serious questions about the role of the master of the roster, DY Chandrachud. Dave’s letter mentioned that he brought these issues to CJI’s attention a while back but received no response.

A year into his tenure, all is not well in Chandrachud’s Supreme Court.

More on this and other politically sensitive cases shifting before Justice Trivedi led bench in the piece for @Article14live.

Support independent journalism!

Pls retweet and share.

{End}

article-14.com/post/contrary-…