If Hearing Was Virtual And The Judge Didn’t Know People Were Protesting Outside, How Is There An Influence? Calcutta HC Asks CBI In Narada Case

Overview Of What Went On, On Tuesday, June 1

• During the hearing of the Narada Scam case, the CBI sought the transfer of the trial and a declaration that the hearing in trial court on May 17th in which bail was granted to 4 TMC leaders, was void on account of mobocracy.
• The five-judge bench of Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justices I. P. Mukherjee, Harish Tandon, Soumen Sen and Arijit Baneerji were hearing the transfer application made by the CBI.
• The Solicitor General appearing for CBI claimed that a court proceeding should not only be open but also reflect the same on the common man’s mind. It was his contention that the justice must not only be done but it must also be seen to be done.
• The learned SG started the arguments by stating the factual backdrop of the case concerning the the dharna held by the CM of West Bengal before the CBI office and the protest held by the Law Minister against the arrest of the four leaders –Firhad Hakim, Madam Mitra, Subrata Mukherjee and Sovan Chatterjee.

Submissions Made By The Solicitor General

• The SG submitted as a result of the protest and the mob, the Court had an effect not only on investigation the agency but also on administration of justice.
• He claimed that events like these leave an imprint on the minds of the common man that there was an influence on the judicial system. He argued that the bias was not due to the prejudice of the judge but because of the fear created by the people gathered outside the court.
• Mr. Mehta stated that this not an isolated event but is a template behaviour in West Bengal whenever investigations are made against the high functionaries.
• He also asked the court to “shake its judicial conscience” and make an “authoritative pronouncement” as to what should be the reaction of the executive against an investigation being conducted by a central agency.
• When asked why the accused should suffer for the acts of the mob, the SG replied that gathering outside the court was well orchestrated and only beneficiaries were the accused persons. He pointed out that the crowd disbanded once the interim bail was granted.
• Mr. Mehta kept urging the bench to widen the scope of issues instead of restricting to issues bail and to adjudicate upon larger issues like mobocracy during the arrest of political leaders.

Court’s Observation

• The Judge questioned that in India, there’s a concept of open courts and that in our democracy, and people have a right to peaceful assembly and protest. So how will there be an impression on the mind of the common man that such a protest will influence the Judiciary?
• After hearing the submissions made by the Solicitor General, Justice Soumen questioned Mr. Mehta that how could he say that the Judge was influenced when the hearing was a virtual platform and the Judge had no idea about the protests going on outside?
• Hon’ble Justice Sen questioned how will there be an influence on the Judge? To that the SG replied that it’s not about what the judge might have felt, he may not have known about the people gathered outside. But it’s about what a reasonably informed man would have felt.
• The matter will be continued on 2nd June 2021.

What do you think of this matter?