Karnataka HC's Observations Against ACB "Irrelevant" In Bail Application, Says Supreme Court; Stays Proceedings Against ACB

The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the directions passed by a single bench of the Karnataka High Court against the Anti-Corruption Bureue(ACB) such as the calling for closure reports filed so far and service records of the officers. The bench of CJI NV Ramanna, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli said that the judge while hearing the bail petition of one accused made "irrelevant observations" and went beyond the scope of the bail application."The observations made and the directions passed, relating to the service record of the petitioner in SLP(Crl.).....D.No.20525 of 2022(ADGP Seemant Kumar Singh, ACB Chief), `B' reports in all cases filed by the ACB from 2016 onwards, the alleged involvement of the petitioner in SLP(Crl.).....D.No.21350 of 2022(JC Manjunath), and the enthusiasm (or lack thereof) of the ACB officers are either irrelevant or detrimental to the fair trial of the accused in the present case", the SC order said."The proceedings before the HC of Karnataka not linked with the proceedings with the accused is stayed. We request the HC to consider the bail application of the accused. List after 3 weeks," the bench said in its order.The directions were passed by the bench while considering a plea preferred by the Anti-Corruption Bureau of Karnataka, State of Karnataka, the ACB Chief Seemant Kumar Singh ADGP and Karnataka IAS Officer J Manjunath against certain adverse observations made by Justice HP Sandesh of the Karnataka High Court.Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for ADGP Seemant Kumar Singh, requested the bench to expunge the adverse remarks made by the High Court bench. Senior Advocate S Nagamuthu, appearing for J Manjunath IAS (who was arrested in the bribery case subsqeuent to the critical remakrs of the Court), requested that the matter be assigned to some other bench."Sorry, we have to balance the sides. we cannot be seen to be favoring one side", the CJI said while ordering notice in the SLPs.Justice Sandesh had orally said that the ADGP was a powerful person and that a High Court judge had given him the example of another judge getting transferred for making similar interventions. The same was made by the Judge after expressing dissatisfaction with the investigation in a case related to Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru (Urban). He had also passed directions to the ACB to produce all the closure reports filed since its inception. On July 12, the bench headed by CJI had requested the judge to defer the hearing in the case for three more days. What were the remarks of the HC judge? "Your ADGP is so powerful… Some person spoken to one of our High Court judge, judge came and sat with me and he says, giving an example of transferring of one of the judge to some other district…I will not hesitate to mention the name of the judge also", Justice Sandesh had told the ACB counsel in the hearing held on July 4. "I am going to protect the independence of the judiciary at the cost of my judgeship. This should not happen. I will record the same in the order itself. You people are encouraging such people. You are here to protect the institution, not to do all these things…" He added "I have no personal interest. Corruption is cancer, I will bell the cat, even at the cost of my judgeship. It is my duty to protect the independence of the judiciary also. I am not affiliated to any political party and also belong to the ideology of any political party. I am affiliated to the Constitution only…" On July 11, Justice Sandesh recorded in writing the threat of transfer he received from a sitting judge. The same was done after being informed about the SLP. In his order while adjourning the case for July 13, the judge had stated that, "... on account of superannuation, a dinner was arranged by this court to bid farewell to Honourable Chief Justice on 01-07-2022. A sitting judge who came and sat by the side of me started with the word…"He had received a call from Delhi (not disclosed the name) and says the person who called from Delhi, inquired about me and immediately I replied I am not affiliated to any political party. The judge did not stop the same there itself, and said that ADGP is from North India and he is powerful. He also gave an instance of transfer of...." Case Title : Anti Corruption Bureau Karnataka vs Mahesh PS |Diary No.20631/2022Click Here To Read/Download Order

Karnataka HC's Observations Against ACB "Irrelevant" In Bail Application, Says Supreme Court; Stays Proceedings Against ACB

Shruti Kakkar

Tags