2G Spectrum: Delhi High Court hears appeals against acquittal of accused [LIVE UPDATES]

The Delhi High Court is continuing its hearing of the appeals preferred by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) against the acquittal of all the accused in the 2G Spectrum case..The ppeals are before Justice Brijesh Sethi. .Hearing begins..Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog appears for Karim Morani. We have travelled a long way in the arguments, Mr Nandrajog: Court.Justice Sethi sums up the submissions made by the parties till now..They have tried to impress upon that the appeal is not maintainable since there was no saving clause for Section 13(1)(d)(iii) PC Act: Court.Since we are talking on the same subject, there may be a small overlap: Nandrajog.We have an application.. we are seeking certain directions.. that matter be either referred to the Division Bench or the Court await the judgement of the Division Bench. This issue will have a vast consequence: Nandrajog.Leave is yet to be granted in the appeal. The charge sheet involves section 13(1)(d) and we all have been acquitted: Nandrajog.In a number of other petitions, the issue arises of awaiting the decision of the division bench. Other coordinate benches referred the matter to the division bench: Nandrajog .Yes, division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul is hearing the reference made by Judge Kamini Lau: Court.Nandrajog refers to Section 395, CrPC. .Judges sit in benches and they exercise the same powers. This is not to say that this court is subordinate: Nandrajog argues..The legislative intent in such cases involving important question of law is that pending a reference, the Court will not proceed with the matter: Nandrajog.The division bench said that the issue required meticulous consideration.. in accordance with judicial propriety, this court must stay its hands in view of the reference: Nandrajog.Leave cannot be granted on an assumption that the issue would be decided one way or the other: Nandrajog.Every bench must grant due respect to the decisions of coordinate benches and in case of disagreement, not overrule it but refer it: Nandrajog.This was argued in detail by Mr Sidharth Luthra: Court.I will not cite judgements. I will only state my propositions: Nandrajog.Nandrajog refers to Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise vs Dunlop India..This was discussed by Mr Luthra yesterday: Court.Nandrajog refers to a Bombay High Court judgement..One of the landmark judgements on judicial propriety is UOI vs Raghubir Singh: Nandrajog. Nandrajog reads the judgement..Nandrajog refers to Supreme Court's decision in AIIMS vs Sanjeev Chaturvedi..The system that we have created makes provisions for single benches, two judges..keeping in view the importance of matter: Nandrajog.The amendment does not have a saving clause. The absence of a saving clause is a deliberate and conscious act of the legislature: Nandrajog.There was report given in 2004 by a Committee set up by Centre on civil services reforms. This is much before the offence in question came into existence: Nandrajog.The issue has remained in debate for years.. the Parliament consciously took the decision to not have a saving clause: Nandrajog .Nandrajog reads the Committee's observations on Officers taking commerical decisions in good faith but are later prosecuted..Nandrajog reads the Committee report on the need to take a relook at section 13(1)(d)(iii) PC Act.Committees after Committees have gone into the issue: Nandrajog.Nandrajog refers to a Rajya Sabha report. .This was read out by either Mr Vijay Aggarwal or Mr Singhvi: Court.No, My Lord: Advocate Vijay Aggarwal.Nandrajog reads the report..The report refers to the concerns raised by stakeholders on the consequences of Section 13(1)(d)(iii) PC Act..The report is conscious of the fact that Centre was going to delete the provision: Nandrajog.It is in the fitness of things that the issue be decided by the Division Bench: Nandrajog.Nandrajog refers to Rajya Sabha debates. .I remember that this was definitely referred to by Mr Aggarwal or Mr Singhvi: Court.In an evolving society, a provision is not eternal. The earlier two reports referred to an era of public-private partnership: Nandrajog.Nandrajog quotes Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru to state that government had to get into the sphere of commerce. .Now we're 40-50 years ahead and the private sector is robust: Nandrajog.Matter was discussed in the Rajya Sabha and even in the Lok Sabha. It is a body which has experienced politicians, large number of them advocates.. they were conscious of the saving clause not being there: Nandrajog.These debates should be considered by the Court: Nandrajog .Nandrajog refers to another judgement..It is evident that intent of legislature was that section 13(1)(d) should be removed.. due respect must be given to the process. These matters are pending consideration in Manmohan Singh's case before the Surpreme Court: Nandrajog.Unlike Triple Talaq, here Parliament moved first and brought the amendment: Nandrajog.Parliament is fully conscious of the existing circumstances and position.. it is aware of the general clauses act and every legal provision: Nandrajog.Nandrajog reads a judgement on wisdom of the legislature..Here the intention has been that the draconian law must be removed..: Nandrajog.Substitution means complete repeal of the provision: Nandrajog.Nandrajog reads UP Sugar Mills v State of UP, State of Rajasthan vs Mangi Lal..I'm not arguing on applicability of Section 6, General Clauses Act as it has already been argued: Nandrajog.I will read two more judgements: Nandrajog.Having cited the judgments and law, I'm conscious of the fact that an arguement can be raised that when the act was committed, it was an offence.. there is a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs Managipet: Nandrajog.Nandrajog reads the judgement..The Supreme Court is very clear on the issue that a judgement is binding on the issue decided in it. The applicability of Section 13(1)(d) was not a issue before Supreme Court in that case: Nandrajog.This material was also not placed before the Supreme Court. Applicability was a mere passing reference: Nandrajog.My final submission is that the acquittal in this case happened in December 2017 and amendment came in 2018. Appeal is a matter of right, leave to appeal is not: Nandrajog.It is at best a hope. The amendment does not take away any vested right because there is no vested right in the first place: Nandrajog.Nandrajog refers to another judgement..Keeping in view the gravity of the issue, my request is that either the matter be referred to the Division Bench or be adjourned sine die: Nandrajog.Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta on behalf of Sharad Gupta wishes to make short submissions on this issue : Advocate Riddhima Mandhar .No, no. You should have told me earlier. I have been asking everyday: Court .I'm last in the number of respondents: Mandhar .No, no. I'm sorry: Court.Senior Advocate ANS Nadkarni informs that a petition is listed before the Court on the issue of Centre's order to file the appeal..The Court has already reserved the order on the aspect of Sec 378(2).. these petitions can be renotified: ASG Sanjay Jain.Mr Aggarwal said that there would not be any argument on the Petition: Court My argument is different, his are different. The petitions may be heard before order is passed: Nadkarni.I said there was two writ petitions. I was for Rajiv Agarwal. Mr Nandkarni is right in making that request. My prayer was only supply of documents: Aggarwal.Here they are challenging the documents given by ASG Jain..there is a full fledged argument: Aggarwal.Writ petition is listed today. If you want you can argue today: Court.Not withstanding the limited prayer in Mr Aggarwal's prayer, the counsel on other side ... they make out their arguments on the basis of Aggarwal's petiton: Jain.Jain says that arguments were made at length on behalf of several counsel. .When on the same argument, order has been reserved.. tomorrow is that last day of the vacation, the petitions may be renotified. I will also seek instructions: Jain.What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly: Aggarwal.I'm not saying I'm deciding. I'm only renotifying: Court.My problem is that I moved a simple application.. ASG Jain sent me a communication. In this writ petition, I have challenged the documents: Aggarwal.The scope of this petition is much wider: Aggarwal.Then you should withdraw that application: ASG Jain .I agree. I will withdraw my application (seeking documents): Aggarwal .Who is going to compensate the exchequer: Aggarwal.I'm governed by the considerations of the country: ASG Jain.You said categorically that you didn't want to argue the petiton. I remember it clearly: Court.100% right. What matters is would I say something and go back on my words?. The petition was filed as abundant caution: Aggarwal.You started saying that your documents were genuine that we have now challenged the documents: Aggarwal.My application is satisfied and now I'm withdrawing it on Mr Jain's suggestion: Aggarwal.The Court may take up the petition tomorrow. Even after one month the submissions on leave are yet to begin. Court should fix half an hour for each side to hear the Petition: Jain.It cannot be a situation where they keep filing petitions/applications. I want to conclude my argument on section 13(1)(d) and this : Jain.Propriety demands that the writ petitions are stood over: Jain .The petitions do not concern 13(1)(d) or Section 378. It is on power of central government and how the appeal has been authorised. It will not involve argument on either of the sections: Nadkarni.Tomorrow we will finish everything come what may: Court.About 50 judgements have been cited on section 13(1)(d) by them. It will inevitably take time: Jain. Tomorrow we will take up section 13(1)(d) issue then..: Court.Tomorrow you will be able to answer all queries: Court .I need time. Or the Court may hear Mr Nadkarni and Mr Aggarwal on their writ petitions tomorrow: ASG Jain.We will hear you tomorrow: Court.The Court may clarify if order in the application will be pronounced before the petitions are heard: Jain.I will only take the court through its powers and not repeat what had been said before: Aggarwal.You will take 15-20 mins?: Court .I will take about an hour: Aggarwal .Send your notes and judgements. Will will take it up after the break on November 2: Court.Arguments in section 13(1)(d) may not get completed tomorrow. Writ petitions may be fixed for tomorrow and I will also reply: Jain.Court agrees to hear the writ petitions tomorrow. Court adjourns hearing for the day..Matter to be heard tomorrow.

2G Spectrum: Delhi High Court hears appeals against acquittal of accused [LIVE UPDATES]

Related Stories