SC declines to stay 2G case trial

Continuance of trial without any material basis would amount to abuse of the process of law, say the accused

September 24, 2014 07:26 pm | Updated November 17, 2021 01:27 am IST - New Delhi

Mr Raja and Ms. Kanimozhi and others have sought to quash charges in the 2G case.

Mr Raja and Ms. Kanimozhi and others have sought to quash charges in the 2G case.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to stay the trial in the `2G spectrum allocation case’ till petitions seeking quashing of charges were decided by the apex court.

A bench of Justice H.L. Dattu and S.A. Bobde rejected the argument of senior counsel Ram Jethmalani, appearing for former Telecom Minister A. Raja that the trial should be stayed till the court decided the quash petitions. Mr. Jethmalani sought copies of documents submitted by the CBI Dirctor in a sealed cover. Justice Dattu told the counsel ‘we have not done it (stay of trial) earlier and we don’t want to do it now.”

Ms. Kanimozhi, member of Parliament and daughter of former Tamil Nadu chief minister M. Karunanithi and other accused had sought to quash charges in the 2G case. They 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 Harish Salve, appearing for Reliance Communications said another issue to be decided was whether the date of application for licence should be taken into consideration or the date of allotment of licence as such a decision would have a bearing on the trial.

Senior counsel Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Ms. Kanimozhi pleaded for early decision on her quash petition.

The bench, after hearing counsel for the parties and senior counsel K.K. Venugopal, for the CBI and special public prosector for 2G cases, senior counsel Anand Grover posted all the maters for final hearing on October 29.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.