NEW DELHI: The
Supreme Court on Friday gave the Centre a few anxious moments by coming uncomfortably close to seeking a status report of the investigation done by probe agencies into the Rs 12,600 crore Nirav Modi-PNB fraud.
Brushing aside attorney general K K Venugopal’s objections to the PIL petitioner’s locus standi and argument against judicial intervention at this stage, a bench of Chief Justice
Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y
Chandrachud asked, “Why can’t you file the probe status report in a sealed cover before us? We will not share it with the petitioner.”
With the bench insisting on the status report, Venugopal said it had become a trend these days for PIL petitioners to seek court-monitored probes even without pleading whether there were any lapses in the investigation.
“I have serious objections to the maintainability of the PIL at this stage when the investigation is underway across the country in several locations. As many as 90 persons have been arrested, including eight public servants,” he said.
While the bench and the AG were engaged in debate, petitioner’s counsel J P Dhanda jumped in and claimed that the AG had not read the PIL, which raised many issues relating to the scam. This irked the bench no end.
The
CJI asked, “Is this an argument, the AG has not read the petition?” Instead of backing out, Dhanda added fuel to the fire by saying, “It is a fact, ask him (AG).” The CJI got irritated and said, “We have never asked any counsel whether he has read the petition to assist the court, leave alone the attorney general who is a constitutional post holder.”
The CJI warned Dhanda and said the language employed by counsel in court had to be within the boundaries of decorum and it would not tolerate any deviation from that. Justice Khanwilkar joined in and said, “Filing of a PIL does not give anyone a licence to say anything about anybody and against court too.” The bench said it would not hear the petition on Friday because of Dhanda’s aspersion on the AG and adjourned the hearing to April 9.
During the last hearing on February 21, the PIL petitioner-advocate Vineet Dhanda was accused by the bench of playing to the gallery by making comments about the SC deciding to hear the AG’s preliminary objections on maintainability of the petition, when the entire country was waiting for the outcome of the hearing.
The petitioner advocate said he had practised for 16 years and did not need publicity.
The court questioned his knowledge about rules and said, “Have you discharged your advocate (who happened to be his father J P Dhanda) to argue as petitioner in person?” The junior Dhanda said his father was unwell and as a result he decided to argue. But the court had adjourned the hearing.
