 "No other court should pass stay orders in 2G case, says SC")
The Supreme Court on Tuesday asserted it would continue to monitor part of the investigations into the 2G telecom spectrum scam, adding no other court should pass stay-orders in this matter.
Senior telecom executives standing trial in the special court had raised objections to the court’s April 2011 order that said, “Any prayer for staying or impeding progress of the trial can only be made before this court and no other court shall entertain the same. The trial must proceed on a day-to-day basis.”
The judgment stated the 2011 order “only facilitates the progress of the trial by ordering it must proceed on a day-to-day basis”.
Five senior corporate executives facing trial — Shahid Balwa, Vinod Goenka, Rajiv Agarwal, Asif Balwa and Ravinder Kumar Chandolia — had moved the court to recall the order. But the bench of judges G S Singhvi and K S Radhakrishnan declined the request. Arguments of both the sides, presented by their lawyers, were underway for about a month. But their arguments that they could move the Delhi High Court against the special court orders and procedural violations were rejected by the Supreme Court.
Ram Jethmalani, Harish Salve and others had argued the Supreme Court had taken away the constitutional right of every citizen to move high courts to correct procedural errors committed by trial courts. They had contended in the court’s anxiety to fast-track the trial, it had taken away the fundamental right to move courts.
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) counsel K K Venugopal, however, supported the court’s order. He said considering the magnitude of the scam and the extraordinary findings uncovered during the investigations, the 2011 order was justified. According to the CBI, the court had the power to pass such restrictions in cases such as this.
Justifying its stand, the judgment by Radhakrishnan stated, “Unsolved crimes, unsuccessful prosecution, unpunished offenders and wrongful convictions bring our criminal justice system in disrepute. Crores and crores of taxpayers’ money is being spent for investigating crimes in our country, since every such incident is a crime against the society. When the persons involved in the crime wield political power and influence, the possibility of putting pressure on the investigating agency, which is no more independent in our country, is much more. Common people will be left with the feeling they can get away with any crime, which tarnishes the image not only of the investigating agency, but of the judicial system as well. Once an investigation fails, the court will be faced with a fait accompli. Proper and uninfluenced investigation is necessary to bring about the truth. Truth will be a casualty if investigation is derailed due to external pressure and the guilty gets away from the clutches of law.”
Senior telecom executives standing trial in the special court had raised objections to the court’s April 2011 order that said, “Any prayer for staying or impeding progress of the trial can only be made before this court and no other court shall entertain the same. The trial must proceed on a day-to-day basis.”
The judgment stated the 2011 order “only facilitates the progress of the trial by ordering it must proceed on a day-to-day basis”.
More From This Section
It clarified typically, once a charge sheet was submitted, the process of the court monitoring an investigation came to an end. But this was a special case; here, a charge sheet had been filed only for one of the many 2G-related cases. While passing the order, the court directed a speedy trial.
Five senior corporate executives facing trial — Shahid Balwa, Vinod Goenka, Rajiv Agarwal, Asif Balwa and Ravinder Kumar Chandolia — had moved the court to recall the order. But the bench of judges G S Singhvi and K S Radhakrishnan declined the request. Arguments of both the sides, presented by their lawyers, were underway for about a month. But their arguments that they could move the Delhi High Court against the special court orders and procedural violations were rejected by the Supreme Court.
Ram Jethmalani, Harish Salve and others had argued the Supreme Court had taken away the constitutional right of every citizen to move high courts to correct procedural errors committed by trial courts. They had contended in the court’s anxiety to fast-track the trial, it had taken away the fundamental right to move courts.
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) counsel K K Venugopal, however, supported the court’s order. He said considering the magnitude of the scam and the extraordinary findings uncovered during the investigations, the 2011 order was justified. According to the CBI, the court had the power to pass such restrictions in cases such as this.
Justifying its stand, the judgment by Radhakrishnan stated, “Unsolved crimes, unsuccessful prosecution, unpunished offenders and wrongful convictions bring our criminal justice system in disrepute. Crores and crores of taxpayers’ money is being spent for investigating crimes in our country, since every such incident is a crime against the society. When the persons involved in the crime wield political power and influence, the possibility of putting pressure on the investigating agency, which is no more independent in our country, is much more. Common people will be left with the feeling they can get away with any crime, which tarnishes the image not only of the investigating agency, but of the judicial system as well. Once an investigation fails, the court will be faced with a fait accompli. Proper and uninfluenced investigation is necessary to bring about the truth. Truth will be a casualty if investigation is derailed due to external pressure and the guilty gets away from the clutches of law.”