Cal HC to hear leaders' plea for recall of stay on bail before CBI's transfer prayer
Kolkata: A five-judge bench of the Calcutta High Court on Thursday adjourned the hearing of the Narada tape case till Friday only after deciding to hear the recall applications by two state ministers, an MLA and a former Kolkata Mayor against the stay of their bail in this connection before hearing the issues that the CBI raised about the breakdown of the rule of law and mob pressure on the court.
During the day, the Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and justices I P Mukerji, Harish Tandon, Soumen Sen and Arijit Banerjee heard submissions by the Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta representing the CBI and senior counsels appearing for the accused persons.
Adjourning hearing in the Narada case, the high court said on Friday it will first hear the recall applications by the four on the stay granted by a division bench on bail to them.
The five-judge bench said it will then hear the CBI's prayer for transfer of the case to the high court from the Special CBI court which granted bail to the four politicians on May 17, hours after their arrest.
Two cabinet ministers — Firhad Hakim and Subrata Mukherjee — along with Trinamool Congress MLA Madan Mitra and former Kolkata Mayor Sovan Chatterjee were arrested on May 17 morning and the interim bail was granted by the Special CBI Court on the same day. But they were taken to judicial custody as the Division Bench of the Acting Chief Justice and Justice Arijit Banerjee had stayed the bail in a late-night order.
With the two-hour-long hearing beginning at 2 pm, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sought a declaration that the May 17 proceedings of the Special CBI Court (which granted bail to the four heavyweights) are vitiated on account of the mob created pressure by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and state Law minister Moloy Ghatak and direction to transfer the case out of Calcutta.
Defence counsel Kalyan Bandyopadhyay made an appeal before the Bench to consider the recall applications first stating that "in a matter of personal liberty, the recall applications cannot be kept aside".
"Article 226(3) casts a duty on the court that a vacation application of an ex-parte order must be heard within 14 days. Therefore, our applications have to be heard first. In my 40 years, I have never seen an order passed by this High Court in violation of natural justice. I am surprised which jurisdiction Your Lordships are exercising. It is paining me," submitted Bandyopadhyay.
He also insisted that due to house arrest, Firhad Hakim, who is serving as state Urban Development and Municipal Affairs, could not do anything whilst people were suffering due to Cyclone Yaas.
Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Sidharth Luthra also backed Bandyopadhyay and urged the five-judge Bench to take up the recall applications as they pertain to the personal liberty of the detenus under house arrest.
Justice Mukerji, speaking for the Bench, told the SG that as a court of law, it can only check if the alleged mobocracy has influenced the Judge who passed the order. "We can only take into account the legal factors considered by the judge. You have said you are not attributing anything to the judge. If there is nothing on record to show if the learned judge was influenced, how can we as a court of law look into other factors," he observed.
He also pointed out that "unless you show that the learned judge was influenced by it, this will be counter-productive." Justice Soumen Sen added: "Can a judicial order be set a naught on the basis of a perceived injustice?"
Responding to it, the SG submitted: "That is the question. Justice must also be seen to be done."
Justice Harish Tandon remarked: "I don't think the emotions of common man, dehors the rule of law, would avert the dispensation of justice...common man may go by their emotions or sentiments. We have to see rule of law framework. Even if the emotions are high, rule of law does not permit them."
