New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday saw a sharp exchange of words between Justice Abhay Oka and a bench headed by Senior Advocate. Mahesh Jethmalani The lawyer alleged that the Chhattisgarh government’s petition against the former IAS officer Anil Tutaza It was not being heard due to adjournment. The bench passed an order, in which he asked to move the CJI to move the case to another bench and reminded them that the government itself demanded the postponement of hearing on some occasions.
At the beginning of the hearing, Jethmalani told the bench that the state wanted Custodial inquiry and pressured for an initial hearing. However, the court said that the main case was still pending and the interim order holiday hearing can be heard with it as the accused was already directed to cooperate in the investigation. Senior advocates Gopal Shankaranarayanan and Meenakshi Arora also informed the court that the accused were presenting on every date.
Jethmalani then questioned the jurisdiction of the court in giving interim relief and said that “this is not the province of the court”. Not accepting its submission, the bench said that the court was not “powerless” to give relief. “If you are making complaints against the bench, you can go in front of the Chief Justice. This is not the way to behave,” the bench said.
Coming to the presentation of Jethmalani, Shankaranarayanan challenged him that when the hearing was deferred due to the accused, to complete the dates and the bench said that the state had postponed itself thrice.
Jethmalani clarified that he was not making any allegations against the bench. He said, “Whatever your Lordship has said, it is being misunderstood. I did not say anything about the bench. I indicated the conduct of the parties,” he said.
However, the court passed an order, asking the CJI to transfer the case to another bench. The bench told Jethmalani, “If we start adopting this approach – which Advocate has taken place – then it will be impossible for us to work.”
A bench headed by Justice Oka on April 15 granted Tutaza bail in a money laundering case arising out of the Chhattisgarh liquor scam, given that Tutaza was in custody for more than a year and was not accused against him and more than 30 prosecution witnesses were to be investigated.
Based on the allegations of ED’s “high handedness” and “inhuman conduct”, a person who went beyond midnight to inquire about 15 hours, SC pulled the agency in January and expressed concern over his approach to investigating.
Ed denied the allegation and accused Tuteja of impressing the witnesses with the help of the Chhattisgarh Police and the East-Advocate General under the previous Congress government. It also produced documents in support of its allegation in a seal envelope, which is said to have transferred an important judicial officer outside the state.
