[2G Appeal] No urgency to allow early hearing plea by CBI, ED against acquittal: A Raja and Ors argue before Delhi HC

A Raja, K Kanimozhi and other persons acquitted in the 2G Spectrum case today argued before the Delhi High Court that there was no cause to grant an out-of-turn, urgent hearing to the appeals moved by Central Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement Directorate amid COVID-19 pandemic. (ED vs A Raja).A Single Judge Bench of Justice Brijesh Sethi was hearing the applications for early hearing moved by the two investigating agency. .CBI and ED have sought urgent virtual hearing in the matter to facilitate a decision in their leave to appeals before the retirement of Justice Sethi in the end of November 2020. .Judge to retire in November; 2G appeals must be heard urgently: ASG Sanjay Jain urges Delhi HC.Stating that the 2G spectrum case involved public interest, public money and even engaged the attention of the Supree Court, ASG Sanjay Jain today contended that the scheduled date of October 12 be advanced to save judicial time .If applications of 1000s of pages can be drafted and argued, it is possible to conduct argument in 2G spectrum case through video conferencing, ASG Jain said. .Counsel for A Raja, Advocate Manu Sharma submitted that allowing hearing in 2G appeals would be contrary to the guidelines and the "sequence" being followed by the High Court for virtual hearings amid COVID-19. .It was pointed out that at present, only those pending criminal matters were being taken up by the High Court in which the accused was still in custody. .Being a case of acquittal, the present case had no urgency whatsoever, it was stated. .Advocate Sharma also contended that before proceedings any further, the Court ought to decide the issue of application of amended Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act to pending cases..Seconding the argument, Advocate Vijay Aggarwal, for Shahid Balwa, Asif Balwa and others, added that apart from the present case, there were several other cases which were borne out of 2G spectrum allocation, however, no such urgency was being shown in those. .Aggarwal stated that given the bulky nature of trial record, it would not be possible to do justice to the appeals through virtual hearings. .Appearing for K Kanimozhi, Advocate Tarannum Cheema also opposed the application for early hearing as she submitted that while the virtual hearings had been going on since April, the urgency was realised by the agencies only after six months had lapsed. Cheema also pointed out CBI's application was yet to be served to Sanjay Chandra who is in jail. .Counsel for Sharad Kumar, Advocate R Balaji also said that the application were misconcieved. Counsel for other acquitted persons, Advocates Varun Sharma and Sahil Modi also reiterated the stand taken by other counsel. .Senior Advocate Dayan Krishan who appears for Ravi Kant Ruia and others clarified that the arguments in the appeal against the aquittal for his clients had not even begun. .Appearing for an official from Reliance Communications, Advocate Siddharth Agarwal contended that after the advent of COVID-19, the High Court has not heard any appeals against orders of acquittal and thus, no order can be passed on favour of the investigating agencies on then ground of "perceived urgency". .Appearing for other accused, Advocates DP Singh, Manali Singhal, A Joseph and Vedanta Varma also opposed the application on the ground that there were no pressing grounds to allow it. .The matter would be heard next on September 22.