Narada Case : 'Question Is Whether Protests Had Any Impact On Judicial Administration', Singhvi Argues For TMC Leaders In Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday continued its hearing in the Narada case, in which the CBI has sought to transfer the trial and to declare that the hearing in the trial court on May 17 - which led to bail being granted to four TMC leaders - was vitiated on account of mob pressure. A 5-Judge Bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal, and Justices IP Mukherjee, Harish Tandon, Soumen Sen and Arijit Banerjee is seized of the matter. Today, Senior Advocate Dr. AM Singhvi, appearing for the accused TMC leaders, opposed the arguments made Solicitor General Tushar for CBI reading vitiation of Trial Court proceedings on account of public perception of bias allegedly created due to May 17 protests which Mehta dubbed as 'mobocracy'. "Imagine the implication of perception argument- consequence is that mobocracy will become a self-fulfilling measure in every trial… If this is accepted, any protest on the streets of Kolkata would be obstruction. No actual obstruction will need to be shown. Only perception of common man would be required," he submitted. Singhvi's Arguments on Mobocracy He stated that the alleged protests were peaceful and whether it could be termed as 'mobocracy' is a question of fact that has to be determined. He insisted that if democratic protests become a ground to say that Court proceedings are vitiated, no Judgment will be safe. "There is no material to show mobocracy. Even CBI's letter dated May 17 addressed to the Chief Justice is neither an appeal nor a PIL. CBI is under some super jurisdiction," Singhvi argued. He stated that when people are outraged, they protest and that is the sign of a democracy. He also clarified that the Law Minister was not present in the Courtroom and thus, there was no interference with the administration of justice. At this juncture, Acting Chief Justice Bindal asked why did the Law Minister go the Court that day. "Does he go there everyday?" the Judge asked. To this, Singhvi responded, "Presence of the Law Minister in Court complex is an indication of his faith in the Courts and an expression of solidarity." ACJ Bindal pointed out that it is not a case of mere public protest or protest by political supporters. "This is a protest led by a Constitutional functionaries. That has to be kept in mind," he said. However, Singhvi pointed out that there is nothing in the bail order to indicate that the Special Judge was under duress due to presence of the Law Minister. "Have you seen any case where Judge says that he is influenced? Can you cite any Judgment? We have not seen any such case," Justice Bindal asked. Singhvi responded, "Yes. Judges do that. They state that conduct of this party or an Advocate in the case is not good and then they proceed to write the order. Disruption of proceedings call for comments," he said. He also cited the Land Acquisition case before the Supreme Court where Justice Arun Mishra refused to recuse himself. Singhvi's Arguments on Perception of Bias Sighnvi argued that peaceful protests outside the Court cannot be a ground to say that judicial proceedings are vitiated. "These days emotions are high for film cases. When Sanjay Dutt was brought to Supreme Court under TADA charges, emotions were seen outside Court. But considering that subjective perception will be a travesty," he submitted. To vitiate Court proceedings, he said, three elements must be satisfied: 1. Such actions must affect administrative running of Court; 2. It must make functioning of the Court impossible; 3. It must render a direct impact on judicial adjudicatory process. "Legal question is not whether they should have protested. Question is whether their protest had any impact on administration of justice," he argued. Can Judicial Order Be Set Aside On Public Perception?Calcutta High Court Asks CBI In Narada Case Justice Soumen Sen pointed out that the issue raised by CBI is that mere presence of the Law Minister in the Court complex will lead to a public perception that administration of justice was averted. "We are only concerned with whether circumstances were such that will give a reasonable doubt in mind of public that justice system was influence," he said. Justice Mukerji said that looking at the matter academically, public is likely to have a reasonable suspicion of bias and influence if it sees a person going into the Judge's chambers. He stated that in such cases, the question of actual bias may take a backseat. Justice Harish Tandon asked that if an elected constitutional functionary assembles and protests outside the Court, can the public perception argument be said to be diluted.Singhvi: There must be an objective conclusion that city was in flames and it affected courts. But public perception of people cannot be a decisive factor. It is perception of Courts that matter.#naradacase #CalcuttaHighCourt— Live...

Narada Case : 'Question Is Whether Protests Had Any Impact On Judicial Administration', Singhvi Argues For TMC Leaders In Calcutta HC

Akshita Saxena

Tags