Posted On by &filed under Criminal Law News.

Swan Telecom promoter Shahid Usman Balwa and others accused on Monday moved the Supreme Court against the order of its bench which had stayed proceedings on all petitions relating to the 2G spectrum case before the Delhi High Court.

They sought staying of the April 11, 2011 and November 9, 2012 orders of a special bench headed by Justice G S Singhvi which had directed that no court other than the apex court shall entertain any application relating to the case.

The petition on their behalf was mentioned by senior advocates Ram Jethmalani and Rajeev Dhavan before a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Altamas Kabir which said it will go through their averments and documents in the chamber and decide on giving them the hearing.

The counsel submitted that the orders of the two-judge bench, which is monitoring the probe into the 2G case, violates the fundamental and constitutional rights of the accused and were without jurisdiction.

They also questioned the authority of the bench for monitoring developments in the case after filing of the charge sheets contending that it was against the guidelines of the apex court which had clearly stated that the monitoring of the case comes to an end with filing of the charge sheet.

Besides Balwa, others who have approached the apex court are Vinod Goenka, promoter of Swan Telecom, Asif Balwa and Rajiv Aggarwal (both directors of Kusegaon Fruits and Vegetables Pvt Ltd).

Aggrieved by the orders, they have sought framing of fresh guidelines to be followed by Constitutional courts in relation to monitoring of criminal investigation and other facets of such probe and for a direction that since the trial in the case has already started there should be no further supervision by the apex court.

While seeking directions to set aside the two orders, they submitted that the directions are bad in law as they have been passed without hearing them and that directly impinges upon their Constitutional rights.

“The orders passed by the special bench of this court could not have abridge the hierarchy of courts and that all proceedings have to be conducted in accordance with law. The hierarchy of courts remains unfettered, unhindered and unaffected by the above-said direction,” the petition said.

The November 9 order restraining high court from hearing the 2G cases was passed after the CBI had moved an application in this regard.

There were 20 petitions or applications pending before the high court after the filing of the charge sheets in the 2G case.

The bench had issued notices and sought replies of various parties within six weeks on the CBI application.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *