Chandrababu Naidu's Case Hearing : Live Updates From Supreme Court [Day 3]

Salve: Offences here (in Rafale case) relate back to 2016. This authoritatively lays down the law. (Referring to Joseph J's opinion)

Salve refers to Justice (Retd) KM Joseph's separate judgment in Yashwant Sinha (2019), in which #SupremeCourt dismissed Rafale review petitions.

Bose J: Till lunch we are discharging the board, then we'll take the regular matters.

Salve: The object of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not only to strengthen the law on corruption, but also to ensure that it is not abused. I pointed this out yesterday as well.

Salve: Absence of prior sanction has always been considered to be fatal to the inquiry. It's not that offences are eviscerated. The agency will have to procure a sanction and then begin the inquiry [anew]. Then they're back on track.

Salve on application of S 17A of PC Act -

Trivedi J: If you say this is procedural, would it confer any substantive rights?

Salve: Sanction provision, this court has held, is a protection to accused, although procedurally. I'll provide the judgment.

Salve: In a criminal case, why a counter-affidavit? Records are here.

Rohatgi: That's the procedure of this court now. If we have a restatement of law, we should totally go back to original position.

Rohatgi (for caveator State) argues that the petition ought to be dismissed at the outset, saying "It's a gross petition."

Bose J: Notice was not envisioned under A 136. It was evolved through practice. Initially, it was granting leave...

Bose J: It's a pleasure to hear you, Mr Salve. But how long will you take? Your colleagues are waiting.

Sr Adv Harish Salve: One hour.

Sr Adv Mukul Rohatgi: Will come back after then that. Been waiting for 3 days...In a matter like this, where Your Lordships will have to decide whether to issue notice.