The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the CBI and the Centre for Public Interest Litigation on petitions filed by DMK MP and former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanithi’s daughter Kanimozhi and other accused seeking to quash charges in the 2G case.
A three-judge Bench of Justices H.L. Dattu, Pinaki Chandra Ghose and S.A. Bobde, issued notice returnable in two weeks and rejoinder in one week thereafter.
The petitioners said they were aggrieved by the stay order passed by the Supreme Court on an application filed by the CBI of all proceedings pending before the Delhi High Court (relating to quashing of charges) which had resulted in violation of their fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
They argued that continuance of the trial against them without any material basis would amount to abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice. They said the trial in the 2G case in the special court was nearing completion and they would be greatly prejudiced if verdict was pronounced during the pendency of these petitions for quashing the charges.
It was submitted that the restraint order passed by the apex court had curtailed their fundamental right to contest the baseless charges by filing quash petitions.
Senior counsel K.K. Venugopal, appearing for the CBI informed the court that the trial court had examined 153 witnesses and recorded evidence for about 35,000 pages. He said following the elevation of senior advocate U.U. Lalit as a Supreme Court judge a new Special Public Prosecutor should be appointed by the court. The bench asked Mr. Venugopal to suggest three names by the next date of hearing to enable them appoint one among them.
When counsel Prashant Bhushan pointed out that investigation officer in 2G case, Santosh Rastogi, a DIG-rank CBI officer had been moved out of the CBI, the Bench asked Mr. Venugopal to verify this and if it was true restore Mr. Rastogi as the investigation officer.
In the Reliance-Swan case, Mr. Bhushan submitted that on instructions from CBI Director, the then IO Mr. Rastogi sent a note to Mr. Lalit for reopening of the case as the earlier charge sheet was filed on a wrong premise. However, Mr. Lalit had rejected the note, Mr. Bhushan said and requested the court to call for these records. The bench asked Mr. Venugopal to produce the records in the court on September 2.
