'Is Protesting In Streets The Way To Respond When Matter Is Considered By Court?' : Calcutta HC Asks In Narada Case Against Trinamool Leaders

The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday asked if it was appropriate to have public protests against the arrests of four TMC leaders when their bail applications were being heard by the Court. A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Arijit Banerjee was hearing the CBI's case against the bail granted to TMC leaders Firhad Hakim, Madan Mitra, Subrata Mukherjee and Souvan Chatterjee in the Narada Scam case.The CBI is seeking to transfer the bail applications from the Special CBI Court to the High Court, citing the "unprecedented mob pressure" exerted by the protests of Chief Minister Mamanata Banerjee and Law Minister Moloy Ghatak along with their supporters.The bench is also hearing the applications filed by the arrested TMC leaders seeking recall of the order passed by the High Court on May 17 to stay the bail granted by the Special CBI judge.After hearing Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the CBI, Senior Advocates Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Siddharth Luthra for the accused for over two hours, the bench adjourned the case till tomorrow 2 PM for further hearing. During the hearing, Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal asked if protests are a way to respond when the matter is being considered by a Court of Law. He also asked if political leaders have a duty to not incite their followers. Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for three of the four arrested TMC leaders, said that the protests were peaceful expressions of outrage against "unlawful arrests" and that they did not impede neither the functions of the CBI nor the proceedings in the Special CBI Court.Singhvi stressed that the Chief Minister had made an appeal for peaceful protests and that there were no exhortations for violence. He dubbed the Chief Minister's protests "Gandhian"."You say CM went to CBI office to protest..Gandhian protest..peaceful protest. But is it the way to respond when the matter is considered by Court? By protesting in streets?", Acting Chief Justice asked.Acting Chief Justice : You say CM went to CBI office to protest..Gandhian protest..peaceful protest. But is it the way to respond when the matter is considered by Court? By protesting in streets.#NaradaCase #CalcuttaHighCourt— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) May 19, 2021 To this, Dr. AM Singhvi appearing replied that the case can be fought legally on merits and the issue of political vendetta can be protested democratically. "It would be negation of democracy to say that just because the matter is before court you cannot peacefully protest outside. Merely because a matter has gone to Court, it will not stop democratic dissent," he added.Singhvi : Merely because a matter has gone to Court, it will not stop democratic dissent.#NaradaCase #CalcuttaHighCourt— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) May 19, 2021 "If there is a perception of unlawful arrest, there is a right to protest, so long as the lawful functions of the agency are not restrained," he argued.He added that there was an outrage amongst people against such unlawful arrests, and there is a right to feel outraged."That is the meaning of democracy. There was expression of anger against arrest after 7 years…" he said.He added, "As it happens in democracy, there was protest by co-ministers, co-MLAs. But there was no hindrance to the CBI. The protestations are being used as an excuse by CBI now"."For 5-6 hours CM remains in CBI office. Do you deny that the law minister going to court was systemic?" ACJ asked. He stated that there is a difference in status once MLA becomes a Minister. "You are not a simple MLA," the ACJ said. Singhvi responded, "Does the CM going to CBI create a situation where a judicial order cannot be passed by a court of law after a virtual hearing of 4 hrs?"It is also his case that mere presence of protestors outside Trial Court did not affect the judicial proceedings as the hearing was virtual."The Special Court has not expressed any difficulty… Special Judge has not made any remotest suggestion of being over-awed," he said.At this juncture, ACJ Rajesh Bindal intervened, "The Special Judge should have recorded that he was being pressurized?""At least there should be a hint, a suggestion," Singhvi responded.He insisted that the Special CBI Judge heard the matter judiciously and the protest is not connected with the judicial order which was passed after hearing and recording reasons."In what manner it is said that he impeded the administration of justice. What is the fact which shows that the law minister standing in the court complex influenced the judge? Did he (judge) even know if the minister was there? There were many people. It is natural," he said."It is not natural," ACJ responded.Dr.Singvhi also highlighted that the proceedings in the Special Court happened through video-conferencing. The CBI suppressed from the High Court that the Special Court's heard the matter for over four hours through virtual mode, he added.Singhvi argued that the...

'Is Protesting In Streets The Way To Respond When Matter Is Considered By Court?' : Calcutta HC Asks In Narada Case Against Trinamool Leaders

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags