Narada Case: Calcutta High Court Reserves Orders On Applications Filed By WB Govt, CM Mamata Banerjee & Law Minister For Accepting Their Affidavits

The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday reserved order on the applications filed by State of West Bengal, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, and the State Law Minister Moloy Ghatak seeking acceptance of their affidavits in the Narada Scam case. A 5-Judge Bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal, and Justices IP Mukherjee, Harish Tandon, Soumen Sen and Arijit Banerjee said it will consider the reasons set out for not filing the counter affidavits on time and will deliver its verdict tomorrow. The development comes after the Supreme Court set aside Calcutta High Court's order which had refused to take on record their affidavits saying that they waited for the arguments in the case to be substantially completed before seeking to place on record their pleadings in response. The Top Court directed the legislators to file an application before the High Court stating the reasons for not filing such affidavits earlier and requested the High Court to decide the applications first before proceeding with hearing on merits. The CBI has argued that the Respondents took a calculated risk by not filing their affidavits after issuance of notice. The State on the other hand claims that there was no delay in filing of affidavits and even otherwise, the Court must allow full facts to be presented before it. Courtroom Exchange Advocate General Kishore Datta submitted before the High Court that State is responsible for maintaining law and order in the State and thus, it is best suited to show the actual facts of the alleged incident and assist the Court to decide if the mobocracy argument raised by the CBI sustains. "Records of alleged events are with State and thus, its affidavit must be taken on record to ascertain the true picture of law and order situation on May 17…Providing security is the job of State. Therefore, it should have an opportunity to present actual state of affairs before this Court, indicating where the State sprang into action and where it failed," Datta said. "There will be no loss of time if affidavits are taken on record," he added. Datta also relied on Rule 38 to claim that the parties are given 4 weeks' time (in this case starting from May 27) to file their affidavits. Hence, he claimed that their affidavit was affirmed on June 5 and there was no delay on their part. However, the Bench asked the AG what will happen if arguments are concluded before expiration of 4 weeks. "Can you come and say after entire hearing is over that my 4 weeks have not expired? We have to take this Rule to logical end," ACJ Bindal remarked. Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for CM Mamata Banerjee and State Law Minister Moloy Ghatak, submitted that even assuming that there has been some delay in filing of affidavits, the Bench may not proceed on principle of non-traverse. "It is settled that mere delay is not a sufficient ground for rejecting pleadings and evidences that are material for adjudication of a case…This is not a simplictor case of transfer. It involves vital findings, nullification of bail order, serious impact on the Respondents," he submitted. Both Datta and Dwivedi argued that investigating agencies are supposed to ascertain the truth and present it before the Court even if it is not in support of their case. "CBI ought not to oppose our affidavit because it's not a civil proceeding where some grave loss will occur to the institution personally. Even assuming some injury happens, is it irreparable? CBI can file a rebuttal, produce CCTV footage from May 17. Let all facts be placed before the Court. Then nobody will be prejudiced," Dwivedi said. Opposing the applications, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta pointed out that AG Datta waived notices for the CM & Law Minister on May 27 but, he was present in the proceedings since May 17. "So, he was aware that question of rule of law, breach of peace and public tranquility was involved," Mehta said. He added, "By not filing the affidavits, the CM and Law Minister took a calculative chance and therefore, delay holds significance. It is not a case of not getting an opportunity to respond. Not responding to notice of a Constitutional Court is not only arrogant but also unpardonable." At this juncture, Justice Soumen Sen said that while exercising supervisory jurisdiction, Court can always ask for record as to what was the state of affairs on the alleged date of incident. "Non-traverse may not be applicable strictly. Merely on assertion of CBI, this Court cannot say that mobocracy occurred," Justice Sen said. Justice Mukerji also asked Mehta if the Court can take the affidavit on record and then examine judicially, whether the affidavit is an afterthought or not. As Mehta conceded to this suggestion, he further urged the Bench to impose a cost on the Respondents for delay in filing of affidavit, even if the same is taken on record. ...

Narada Case: Calcutta High Court Reserves Orders On Applications Filed By WB Govt, CM Mamata Banerjee & Law Minister For Accepting Their Affidavits

Akshita Saxena

Tags