SC slams Subrata Roy’s lawyers for “psychological offensives”, “mind games” and “consciously planned snubs”; Roy to continue in jail

Refusing to be overawed into submission by the intimidation tactics of senior stalwarts, the Supreme Court, in a 207 page judgement delivered today, has strongly condemned the “psychological offensives and mind games” resorted to by the Senior Advocates of Subrata Roy to seek recusal of judges in the Habeas Corpus petition..In the remarkable and strongly worded judgment, Justice JS Khehar and Justice KS Radhakrishnan have very strongly come down upon the Senior lawyers, especially Ram Jethmalani and Rajeev Dhavan for their “affronts, jibes and carefully and consciously planned snubs” while refusing to release Subrata Roy and two other Directors who are lodged in Tihar jail under judicial custody..Relying on the fact that the matter was posted before them by the Chief Justice, the Court has stated that,.“In our view, not hearing the matter, would constitute an act in breach of our oath of office, which mandates us to perform the duties of our office, to the best of our ability, without fear or favour, affection or ill will…… If it was learned counsel’s posturing antics, aimed at bench-hunting or bench-hopping (or should we say, bench-avoiding), we would not allow that. Affronts, jibes and carefully and consciously planned snubs could not deter us, from discharging our onerous responsibility.”.Holding that disobedience of court orders strikes at the very root of rule of law, the Court has also criticised the conduct of the two Sahara companies for failing to comply with its August 2012 judgment..“Judicial orders cannot be permitted to be circumvented….The two companies remained adamant while frittering away repeated opportunities granted by this Court to comply with the orders …The companies adopted a demeanour of defiance constituting a rebellious behaviour, not amenable to the rule of law. Efforts made to cajole the two companies and the petitioner were always stonewalled and brushed off.”.Placing reliance on Sections 51 and 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court also categorically turned down the submission by Roy’s lawyers that arrest and detention cannot be a modality for the execution of money decree..As a post script to the judgment, the judges have very strongly condemned the litigants who abuse judicial process like the Sahara Group and Roy..“They derive their strength from abuse of the legal process. Counsels are available, if the litigant is willing to pay their fee. …..One wonders, what is it, that a Judge should be made of, to deal with such litigants, who have nothing to lose. What is the level of merit, grit and composure required, to stand up to the pressures of today’s litigants? ….. We have no doubt, that the two companies and the present petitioner before this Court – Mr. Subrata Roy Sahara, are such litigants. They never subjected themselves to the authority and jurisdiction of the SEBI. They have continued with the same mannerism at all levels, right upto this Court. They have always adopted an accusing stance, before all the adjudicatory authorities. Even against us.”.Further, considering the amount of time spent in the case and the abuse of judicial process, the Court has beckoned the Legislature to give a thought to “this very serious malady”..Five Senior Counsels had appeared for Subrata Roy – Ram Jethmalani, Aryama Sundaram, Rajeev Dhavan, S Ganesh and Ravi Shanker Prasad..SEBI was represented by Senior Advocate Arvind Datar along with Advocate Pratap Venugopal..Roy and two other Directors of the two Sahara companies have been languishing in Tihar jail since March 4 when they were sent to judicial custody by the Supreme Court while the hearing in the contempt petition filed by SEBI was under way..Subsequently, Roy’s lawyers had filed a Habeas Corpus petition in the Supreme Court contending that the order of March 4 was illegal as no contempt had been proved and that the contempt petition was against the two Sahara companies and not Roy or any of the Directors. They had submitted that putting a person in jail without any proven charges was a violation of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. On the other hand, SEBI Counsel Datar had argued that a person could be put behind bars for the enforcement of court orders..Roy’s lawyers had also come up with one proposal after another for repayment of the money though the court remained unimpressed. It had reserved its order on April 21 after hearing out the lawyers at length..Interestingly, while the hearing in the incident of “ink throwing” by a lawyer on Subrata Roy was progressing on April 30, Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan, had butted in and asked the court to pass its order in the Habeas Corpus petition urgently saying that Roy was finding it difficult to bear the summer heat in jail. This act by the senior lawyer had left the judges perplexed..Read the full judgment below.