Liquor scam affects capital of nation, says CBI before Delhi High Court in case against Kejriwal, others

Matter to be next heard on May 25 around 2:30 pm. 

Justice Jain to Shadan:  Look, you may be having something to say. We'll certainly hear you, but on the next date, which is Monday

Justice Jain:  So we have it on Friday then?

SG Mehta: Yes, my Lord, and we will serve it by doing the course of the thing. We will inform them, my Lord, whichever mode your Lordships consider to be appropriate.

Justice Jain: Let them be served and let they be intimated that the case has now been allocated to this court, so if they have to say anything or respond to the present petition...

Justice Jain: Look, the ideal, the ideal scenario would be only when everybody's here, and everybody's heard.

Justice Jain: We understand that the case has been received on transfer allocation. You know, ideally speaking, because of the fact you know what are the reasons, the matter is already in the newspaper, so we assume otherwise that they it must be near knowledge that the matter is now allocated to this court. But still, if you so desire, and if this is the requirement of the law also, we will not, you know, shy away from sending them a fresh message or notice that now the case is before this court, please appear, and if you have anything to say, please tell us. Let me tell you, a day here or there would not make any difference. And once they're here only, then we'll be at least sure and certain whether they are now okay with the present allocation or not if they have any reservations, we do not know. We'll request the prosecution to at least inform them again by all permissible means. We'll wait for two or three days and then see as to what is to be. 

Shadan: And I said so, my Lords, specifically because my application for maintainability is pending. Therefore, I have not placed on record the reply.

SG Mehta: My Lord, there were several orders passed that last opportunity, last opportunity, last opportunity. My Lord, only four persons have not passed or filed replies. My Lord can take it from me; there are various judicial orders that this is the last opportunity.

SG Mehta: I think clients can do this street drama. We should not. Let us see, my Lord. The argument is that my learned friend, who is a public prosecutor, and his colleagues under his authority have signed. He says that the signature, because of that signature, the revision is not maintainable. My Lord, we, it, there are settled judgments on that..There are rules on that. And my Lord, he has given an authority. He can always authorise.

Shadan: My argument in brief is this. It is, my Lords, the counsels who have filed the petition before the revision petition before this court are not public prosecutors or additional public prosecutors or assistant public prosecutors. They are, in effect, private counsels. Now, they being private counsels, my Lords, they cannot file the present petition, and to that extent, the petition is non-maintainable. Your Lordships can list it on whatever date. I will argue for the application. It can be even tomorrow, the day after, whatever is..

Justice Jain: There is an order of the predecessor bench that everything would be heard together...we hear everything. 

SG Mehta: But, My Lord- ... even if your Lordships, my Lord, I think it is in fitness of things that that's heard together. So therefore, I say that it's a very argument raising a constitutional issue.. a statutory issue.

Shadan: My Lord, no need to belittle my application. Mr Mehta can argue on merit.

SG Mehta: Just stop this habit. I know you have a right of audience, 

Shadan: You have the highest right of audience always, sir. We all know that.

SG Mehta: Mr Sadan, every time, you, you, you need to learn some etiquette. There is an order passed after recording his consent as well. You are also equally important to me. You may not be a very great counsel, but my colleague.. important person as a colleague, I hold you in high esteem.

Shadan: Sir, the greatest counsel is Mr Mehta, my Lord.

SG Mehta: It's already taken care of, my Lord, that when we start arguing, even this would be a subject matter of argument. That's all, my Lord. I wanted to bring to your Lordship's kind notice and my learned friend's, uh, notice. My Lords, may I say we have app, uh, applications on maintainability.

Shadan: My Lords, may I say we have applications on maintainability. That day Mr Mehta made a submission that because it's his petition, he wants to start even on his maintainability, but the application is mine. So, my Lords, I would request your Lordships will first hear my applications on maintainability and then, if your Lordships are to, inclined to, uh, dispose it off one way or the other, based on that, your Lordships can start the arguments on the main matter. That's my request. 

SG Mehta: My Lord, but generally now the practice of reading earlier orders is, is vanishing.

Shadan: My Lords, there's no need to make snide remarks, et cetera.

SG Mehta: My Lord, five days are marked for the hearing.

Senior advocate Shadan: My Lords, one more thing. Before, my Lords, just there are applications on maintainability and other aspects by some of us..

SG Mehta: You have a right of audience, Mr Shadan. 

Senior advocate Shadan: No, no, I'm just pointing out to the court because the court is pointing out the petitioner..

Mehta: Being a petitioner, can I just assist the court?

Senior advocate Shadan: I'm just pointing out, Mr Mehta, something of crucial importance. It's not something that..

Mehta: It is very, very crucial. Your application is very, very crucial. 

Senior advocate Shadan: So there are applications on maintainability. My Lords may also consider that before going into the questions of..

SG Mehta: My Lord, the difficulty is, my Lord, we are old-timers, the counsels, they, they don't read the orders. They go on some important questions of law. My Lord, there is already an order of May 8.  

SG Mehta: The second order which would be relevant for the present is, my Lord, an order dated April 20, para eleven. On my request, my Lord, and the, in the presence of everyone, that this needs to be heard finally. So this is the order passed-"This court will hear arguments on behalf of CBI on the 29th of April and the 30th of April". My Lord, four days were..

Justice Jain: Because you are the one who have filed the petition, so we have to begin with you. In any case, then we have to take the response from the other side.

Justice Jain: These applications were filed by all the accused persons or by some only? SG Mehta: Most of them. There were no applications.  But I'm sorry, I stand corrected. My Lord, at the time of framing of the charge, everybody argued and prayed for discharge...may not be a separate application. Result is the same, my Lord, the procedure may be different. That is the order, which is, my Lord, a very, very serious order and in our submission, that it cannot withstand the scrutiny of any court, in the eyes of law, if we take your Lordships through that. Keeping that in mind, my Lord, two previous orders are required to be seen. One is an order dated April 29, after hearing everyone and after serving, after everybody was served, and two or three orders were passed, only one line on the order dated April 29- List on May 4 for arguments on behalf of CBI. I have re-requested and the request was granted that this is a matter which cannot brook any delay for the reason that this is a scam according to us in the capital of this nation, and therefore, whether we are right or we are wrong, your Lordships will decide, but it has to be decided at the earliest.

SG Mehta: At that time, the framing of the charge, everyone argued and sought discharge. Discharge can’t stand scutiny of any court. The scam affects the capital of the nation. 

Justice Jain: So should we assume that everybody is represented? Tell us.

SG Mehta: No, my Lords. I think some of the respondents are not.

Bench notes no representations for 8, 18 and 19, including Arvind Kejriwal. 

SG Mehta: Eight may be relevant, one zero seven is consequential. All right. One zero eight, note the facts which are relevant for the present purpose without going into the material. 

Justice Jain: Who else are present here today? 

Justice Jain: We can't ask as to who is not present today, unfortunately. The negative cannot be proved, my Lords, you are right. 

Counsel: My Lords, I am for respondents 6 and 10. 

Justice Jain: Let us see the petition first, memorandum of parties. So the sequence is the same which was before the trial court?

SG Mehta: Yes, yes.

The Delhi High Court calls out the names of all the accused persons to see who is not present before it. 

SG Tushar Mehta appears in the matter. 

Court: Let’s see the petition.

Court: Should we assume everyone is represented?

Justice Manoj Jain started hearing the matter. 

Justice Manoj Jain will soon start the hearing of the excise policy case.