Narada Case- "Do You Deny CM Sitting In Dharna In Front Of CBI Office"? Asks Court, "It Was A Means Of Democratic Protest": Dr Singhvi

Senior Advocate AM Singhvi today told that the Calcutta High Court that the dharna led by CM Mamta Banerjee outside CBI's office against the arrest of four TMC leaders on Monday in the Narada Scam case was a means of democratic protest. He alleged that the arrests were illegal and people have a right to protest against such unlawful actions of the central agency. Singhvi told the High Court that the CBI did not obtain sanctions from the Speaker, before effecting the arrest, and instead approached the Governor. "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, 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," he submitted. He further stated that CM Mamta Banerjee went to the CBI in the capacity as an MLA. "What power she has over the CBI or Special CBI Court?" he said when ACJ inquired about the CM's presence at the site. Delete Acting Chief Justice : For 5-6 hours CM remains in CBI office. Do you deny that the law minister going to court was not systemic?Singhvi : 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?— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) May 19, 2021 "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.Singhvi argued that the test for Section 407 application is if the judge was not able to hear the matter or the counsels were prevented from arguing. "There is no mention of any obstruction to hearing. The order records matter was heard virtually on consent of both sides," he submitted.In this context, he referred to the criminal cases against Salman Khan, Sanjay Dutt. "There will be outpouring of emotions in such cases...It does not mean that the administration of justice has been impeded," he argued."The grant of bail and the protests were not connected. There is an attempt to connect two un-connected things," he urged.ACJ Bindal stated that political leaders have a duty to not incite their followers. He also asked it protests are a way to respond when the matter is being considered by a Court of Law.To this, Singhvi submitted 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. A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Arijit Banerjee of the Calcutta High Court is hearing 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 TMC leaders have filed a recall application against an order passed by the High Court, staying bail granted to the TMC leader by the Special CBI Court on May 17. "Confidence of the people in the justice system will be eroded if such incidents occur, while political leaders arrested, are being produced in the Court," the High Court had said. Full court proceedings here.

Narada Case- "Do You Deny CM Sitting In Dharna In Front Of CBI Office"? Asks Court, "It Was A Means Of Democratic Protest": Dr Singhvi

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags