New Delhi: Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Rouse Avenue Court, Delhi, Vishal Pahuja made a shocking announcement on Tuesday before proceedings began in Mobashar Jawed Akbar v Priya Ramani – that your court is not competent to hear the case in view of the order of the Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India. In accordance with this order, special courts were created to try cases. against (Rouse Avenue court emphasis) MP and MLA.
Judge Pahuja’s Tuesday order read as follows:
“In view of the aforementioned judgment of the Honorable Court vide circular n ° 760-804 / DHC / Gaz. / G-1 / VI.E.2 (a) / 2018 dated 23rd February 2018 appointed the special courts for the trial of the cases against MP / MLA. As the present case has not been brought against MP / MLA, therefore, it cannot be tried by this court and must be transferred to the Court of Competent Jurisdiction. That this matter be presented to the court of Ld. Chief District Judge and Sessions (Rouse Avenue District Courts) for October 14, 2020 at 10:30 a.m.
In the criminal defamation case started by Akbar in October 2018, Ramani pleaded not guilty. Akbar had addressed the Patiala House Court under section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, calling the allegations of sexual harassment against him “false, frivolous, unjustifiable and scandalous”. Representing Akbar, lead defender Geeta Luthra argued that due process was not followed when Ramani alleged sexual harassment by Akbar on social media. The accusations were defamatory per se, he maintained.
The ACMM began hearing the case on May 4, 2019. Final arguments in the case began on February 7, 2020, following the completion of the cross-examination. Since then, seven days of discussions have been completed by both parties. Of these, Ramani’s attorney Rebecca John made her oral presentations over four days. He advocated for truth, good faith, the public interest, and the public good as a defense. She contradicted Akbar’s claim to have a “stellar reputation”, considering the spate of revelations against him by several at least 14 women. On the last day of the hearing, September 19, John had completed his presentations on why Ramani deserves to be acquitted.
According to Bar and bench, John argued on September 19 that freedom of speech and expression was fundamental and intrinsic to a democracy, and Ramani was a “small part of a great movement (MeToo) in which several women had denounced the sexually colored behavior of their bosses male “.
On Tuesday, Luthra was to begin rebuttal of John’s arguments, when the judge decided to transfer the case to another court.
The silence in the order of Judge Pahuja this Tuesday on the administrative period that was responsible for the registration of this case before the special court is eloquent. John has been arguing this case pro bono, and each day of discussion meant months of preparation. Can the court take a lawyer like her for granted? Although John declined to comment on Tuesday’s decision, it wouldn’t be wrong to say that there is more to this than meets the eye.
But the official reason itself deserves close scrutiny.
The Supreme Court case, cited by Judge Pahuja, is a pending case since 2016. Some of the orders issued in this case from time to time are revealing.
On March 25, 2019, the then Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, and Justice Deepak Gupta ordered the Secretary General of the Madras High Court of the Judiciary to transfer all criminal cases. related to (emphasis mine) pending MP and MLA under its jurisdiction before the special court for cases related to (emphasis mine) elected the MPs and MLAs from Tamil Nadu, in Chennai.
The order approved by the court of the then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph on December 4, 2018, was celebrated as follows:
Instead of appointing a Court of Sessions and a Magisterial Court in each district, we ask each Superior Court to assign / assign criminal cases involving (emphasis mine) previous legislators and in office of as many Courts of Sessions and Magisterial Courts as each Superior Court considers adequate, adequate and opportune. This, according to us, would be a more effective step rather than concentrating all cases. involving (emphasis mine) former legislators and legislators serving in a special district court. “
On November 1, 2017, the court of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha recorded the submission of Additional Attorney General ANS Nadkarni as follows:
“The present (case) is not an adversarial dispute and the Government of the Union would not oppose the creation of special courts to try criminal cases / offenses involving (emphasis mine) political people and for the quicker elimination of them. “
The last hearing in the case was held on September 16 when a court of judges NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Hrishikesh Roy made it clear that the purpose of issuing the notice in this case was to ensure that criminal prosecutions against (emphasis mine) elected representatives are quickly concluded.
The court was of the opinion that special consideration was required not only because of the growing wave of criminalization that was taking place in the country’s politics, but also because of the power exercised by elected representatives (in office or former) to influence or impede effective prosecution. . Furthermore, as legislators are the trustees of the faith and trust of their electorate, it is necessary to know the background of the person who is / was elected. Ensuring the purity of democratically elected institutions is therefore the hallmark of the present proceedings, the Ramana court clarified in paragraph 14.
In paragraph 17, the court observed:
“The wise superior judges (of the superior courts), while preparing the plan of action, should also consider, in case the trials are already in progress expeditiously, whether it would be necessary and appropriate to transfer them to a different court” .
In paragraph 20, the court requested the superior judges of all superior courts to immediately list all pending criminal cases. involving (emphasis mine) Acting / former legislators (MPs and MPs), particularly those who have been granted a stay, before an appropriate court or tribunals comprising the Chief Justice and / or his designees and deciding whether the suspension must continue. The bench stressed that the conditions of COVID-19 should not be an impediment to compliance with this guideline, since these matters could be conveniently heard through videoconference.
Therefore, it is clear from the records of this case hearing that the Supreme Court has been using the words “involve” and “against” in the context of current and former legislators as synonyms and interchangeable and not in mutually exclusive terms. . And if the clarification in the latest order issued by the Ramana court is any indication, the court would not have meant the exclusion of the defamation case brought by Akbar from the purview of the special court, due to its reasoning in paragraph 14.
Hence, the question of whether the appointed special court on Rouse Avenue took a fairly technical view of its jurisdiction so late in the day, to avoid a speedy conclusion of the trial. involving (emphasis mine) Akbar, persist.
.
