ITEM NO.60 COURT NO.10 SECTION X S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s). 13/2015 DAYANIDHI MARAN Petitioner(s) VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION REP BY ITS DIRECTOR, NEW DELHI Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for ex-parte stay and office report) WITH W.P.(Crl.) No. 14/2015 (With appln.(s) for stay and office report) Date : 09/02/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv. WP(Crl) 13/15 Mr. Amarender Sharan, Sr. Adv. Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Adv. Ms. G. Indira,Adv. Mr. Sumesh D., Adv. Ms. Vatsala, Adv. WP(Crl) 14/15 Mr. L. Nageshwar Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anirban Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Abhisekh E. Kisku, Adv. Mr. Gauhar Mirza, Adv. Ms. Sukriti Mago, Adv. Mr. Abhay Kumar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv. C.B.I. Ms. Pinky Anand, A.S.G., Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Adv. Ms. Sonia Mathur, Adv. Mr. Rohit Bhat, Adv. Mr. Mihir Samson, Adv. Mr. Vikramaditya, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
2 On 6.02.2015, after we dictated the order, on the submission made by Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General, in the afternoon session before this Court rose for the day, for the reasons recorded in our order, the dictated order on 6.02.2015 in these petitions was recalled. After we dictated the Order on 6.2.2015, these matters were relisted for hearing today as per the roster. We have heard Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel, for the C.B.I. and Mr. Anand Grover, learned senior counsel, for the Special Judge Court. We have heard further submissions of learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners. Learned senior counsel for the C.B.I. invited our attention to the order which we have dictated on 6.02.2015 noting the submission made on behalf of learned senior counsel in both the writ petitions would give an impression that they may approach the High Court, though this Court has not expressly given liberty to them to approach the High Court. In that event, that would be contrary to the judgments of this Court in Centre for Public Interest Litigation & Ors. vs. U.O.I. & Ors. , (2012) 3 SCC 117 para 30, Centre for Public Interest Litigation & Ors. vs. U.O.I. & Ors. , (2011) 1 SCC 560, Centre for Public Interest Litigation & Ors. vs. U.O.I. and Ors. , 2013 (8) SCC 18 para 8 and Shahid Balwa vs. U.O.I. & Ors. , 2014 (2) SCC 687 para 13 to show that this Court has in explicit terms has stated in relation to the 2G Scam cases, other than this Court, no other High Court or Courts have jurisdiction to examine the matter. The said submission is strongly rebutted by learned senior counsel, Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Mr. Shekhar Naphade and Mr. L. Nageshwar Rao appearing for the petitioners. Mr. C.A.
3 Sundaram, learned senior counsel, made a submission which is reiterated by other learned senior counsel that the matters which are being filed before this Court in these petitions are not 2G Scam cases, therefore, the Special Judge designated to try the 2G Scam cases exclusively has no jurisdiction in relation to the chargesheets filed in these cases before him and in respect of charges against the petitioners and, therefore, reliance placed on the judgments of this Court by learned senior counsel on behalf of the respondent have no relevance to the facts of the present cases. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners further contended placing strong reliance upon Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the right available to the petitioners cannot be taken away. It was submitted that when they have taken a plea in these proceedings that the Special Judge has no jurisdiction, the alternative remedy available for them, it was contended that, even assuming that the submission made on behalf of the C.B.I. and U.O.I. with respect to the aforesaid cases upon which they have placed strong reliance are correct, then this Court is the appropriate forum to examine the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and therefore, requested this Court to examine as to whether their cases would fall under 2G Scam cases. We have heard learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. We restore the order which we have dictated in the first instance on 6.02.2015 with a further clarification that only the submission of the learned senior counsel on behalf of the parties are noted in our dictated order which is restored today. Further, we make it very clear that in view of the decisions referred to supra on which reliance is placed by Mr. K.K.
4 Venugopal, learned senior counsel, we have not given any liberty to the petitioners to approach the High Court or any other Court except the Special Judge, at the first instance, to raise the jurisdictional issue. With the aforesaid clarification, we restore our dictated order dated 6.02.2015 in these writ petitions. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. (S. K. RAKHEJA) COURT MASTER (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER
d6 ITEM NO.60 COURT NO.10 SECTION X S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s). 13/2015 DAYANIDHI MARAN Petitioner(s) VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION REP BY ITS DIRECTOR, NEW DELHI Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for ex-parte stay and office report) WITH W.P.(Crl.) No. 14/2015 (With appln.(s) for stay and office report) Date : 09/02/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv. WP(Crl) 13/15 Mr. Amarender Sharan, Sr. Adv. Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Adv. Ms. G. Indira,Adv. Mr. Sumesh D., Adv. Ms. Vatsala, Adv. WP(Crl) 14/15 Mr. L. Nageshwar Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anirban Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Abhisekh E. Kisku, Adv. Mr. Gauhar Mirza, Adv. Ms. Sukriti Mago, Adv. Mr. Abhay Kumar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv. C.B.I. Ms. Pinky Anand, A.S.G., Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Adv. Ms. Sonia Mathur, Adv. Mr. Rohit Bhat, Adv.Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by Mr. Mihir Samson, Adv.Sushil Kumar RakhejaDate: 2015.02.1018:53:02 IST Mr. Vikramaditya, Adv.Reason: UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 2 On 6.02.2015, after we dictated the order, on the submissionmade by Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General,in the afternoon session before this Court rose for the day,for the reasons recorded in our order, the dictated order on6.02.2015 in these petitions was recalled.
After we dictated the Order on 6.2.2015, these matters wererelisted for hearing today as per the roster. We have heard Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional SolicitorGeneral, Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel, for theC.B.I. and Mr. Anand Grover, learned senior counsel, for theSpecial Judge Court. We have heard further submissions oflearned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners. Learned senior counsel for the C.B.I. invited our attentionto the order which we have dictated on 6.02.2015 noting thesubmission made on behalf of learned senior counsel in boththe writ petitions would give an impression that they mayapproach the High Court, though this Court has not expresslygiven liberty to them to approach the High Court. In thatevent, that would be contrary to the judgments of this Courtin Centre for Public Interest Litigation & Ors. vs. U.O.I. &Ors., (2012) 3 SCC 117 para 30, Centre for Public InterestLitigation & Ors. vs. U.O.I. & Ors., (2011) 1 SCC 560,Centre for Public Interest Litigation & Ors. vs. U.O.I. andOrs., 2013 (8) SCC 18 para 8 and Shahid Balwa vs. U.O.I. &Ors., 2014 (2) SCC 687 para 13 to show that this Court has inexplicit terms has stated in relation to the 2G Scam cases,other than this Court, no other High Court or Courts havejurisdiction to examine the matter. The said submission is strongly rebutted by learned seniorcounsel, Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Mr. Shekhar Naphade and Mr. L.Nageshwar Rao appearing for the petitioners. Mr. C.A. 3Sundaram, learned senior counsel, made a submission which isreiterated by other learned senior counsel that the matterswhich are being filed before this Court in these petitions arenot 2G Scam cases, therefore, the Special Judge designated totry the 2G Scam cases exclusively has no jurisdiction inrelation to the chargesheets filed in these cases before himand in respect of charges against the petitioners and,therefore, reliance placed on the judgments of this Court bylearned senior counsel on behalf of the respondent have norelevance to the facts of the present cases. Learned seniorcounsel for the petitioners further contended placing strongreliance upon Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedurethat the right available to the petitioners cannot be takenaway. It was submitted that when they have taken a plea inthese proceedings that the Special Judge has no jurisdiction,the alternative remedy available for them, it was contendedthat, even assuming that the submission made on behalf of theC.B.I. and U.O.I. with respect to the aforesaid cases uponwhich they have placed strong reliance are correct, then thisCourt is the appropriate forum to examine the petition underArticle 32 of the Constitution of India and therefore,requested this Court to examine as to whether their caseswould fall under 2G Scam cases. We have heard learned senior counsel appearing on behalf ofthe parties. We restore the order which we have dictated in the firstinstance on 6.02.2015 with a further clarification that onlythe submission of the learned senior counsel on behalf of theparties are noted in our dictated order which is restoredtoday. Further, we make it very clear that in view of the decisionsreferred to supra on which reliance is placed by Mr. K.K. 4Venugopal, learned senior counsel, we have not given anyliberty to the petitioners to approach the High Court or anyother Court except the Special Judge, at the first instance,to raise the jurisdictional issue. With the aforesaid clarification, we restore our dictatedorder dated 6.02.2015 in these writ petitions. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.
(S. K. RAKHEJA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
1 ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.10 SECTION X S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s). 13/2015 DAYANIDHI MARAN Petitioner(s) VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION REP BY ITS DIRECTOR, NEW DELHI Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for ex-parte stay and office report) WITH W.P.(Crl.) No. 14/2015 (With appln.(s) for stay and Office Report) Date : 06/02/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv. WP(CRL) 13/15 Mr. Amarendra Sharan, Sr. Adv. Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Adv. Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Adv. Ms. Vatsala Kak, Adv. Ms. G. Indira,Adv. WP(CRL) 14/15 Mr. L. Nageshwar Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shekhar Naphde, Sr. Adv. Mr. A. Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Abhishek E. Kisku, Adv. Mr. G. Mirza, Adv. Ms. Sukriti Mago, Adv. Mr. Abhay Kumar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Pinky Anand, A.S.G. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 13/2015 : After having argued for some time, Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, seeks leave to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach the appropriate
2 forum. His submission is placed on record. In view of the abovesaid submission, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn. WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 14/2015 : Mr. L. Nageshwar Rao, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, seeks leave to withdraw this petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to move the High Court. His submission is placed on record. In view of the abovesaid submission made by learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn. WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NOS. 13 and 14 of 2015 : At the end of the Board at about 1:10 p.m., Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appeared and made a submission that in relation to the 2G Cases, the matters are listed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India to hear and pass appropriate orders. In view of the above statement made by learned Additional Solicitor General of India, the orders which were passed in the morning, referred above, were recalled. Registry was directed to place these matters before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders. After passing the abovesaid Orders, it has come to the notice of the Court that these matters were listed before this Bench as per the subject category allocated to this Bench after taking directions of Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India. In view of the above, list these matters on Monday, the 9 th February, 2015 to pass appropriate order. (S. K. RAKHEJA) COURT MASTER (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER
1 ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.10 SECTION X S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s). 13/2015 DAYANIDHI MARAN Petitioner(s) VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION REP BY ITS DIRECTOR, NEW DELHI Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for ex-parte stay and office report) WITH W.P.(Crl.) No. 14/2015 (With appln.(s) for stay and Office Report) Date : 06/02/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv. WP(CRL) 13/15 Mr. Amarendra Sharan, Sr. Adv. Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Adv. Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Adv. Ms. Vatsala Kak, Adv. Ms. G. Indira,Adv. WP(CRL) 14/15 Mr. L. Nageshwar Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shekhar Naphde, Sr. Adv. Mr. A. Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Abhishek E. Kisku, Adv. Mr. G. Mirza, Adv. Ms. Sukriti Mago, Adv. Mr. Abhay Kumar,Adv. For Respondent(s) Ms. Pinky Anand, A.S.G. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 13/2015:Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed bySushil Kumar RakhejaDate: 2015.02.0617:27:27 ISTReason: After having argued for some time, Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, seeks leave to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach the appropriate 2forum. His submission is placed on record. In view of the abovesaid submission, the writ petitionis disposed of as withdrawn.WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 14/2015: Mr. L. Nageshwar Rao, learned senior counsel for thepetitioner, seeks leave to withdraw this petition reservingliberty to the petitioner to move the High Court. His submissionis placed on record.
In view of the abovesaid submission made by learnedsenior counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is disposedof as withdrawn.WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NOS. 13 and 14 of 2015: At the end of the Board at about 1:10 p.m., Ms. Pinky Anand,learned Additional Solicitor General of India appeared and madea submission that in relation to the 2G Cases, the matters arelisted before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India to hear andpass appropriate orders. In view of the above statement made by learned AdditionalSolicitor General of India, the orders which were passed in themorning, referred above, were recalled. Registry was directed toplace these matters before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Indiafor appropriate orders. After passing the abovesaid Orders, it has come to thenotice of the Court that these matters were listed before thisBench as per the subject category allocated to this Bench aftertaking directions of Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India. In view of the above, list these matters on Monday, the9th February, 2015 to pass appropriate order. (S. K. RAKHEJA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER