Narada Scam: What is the future of the Narada case? The ‘question’ was also cut in the fifth day’s hearing

#Kolkata: The law minister does not believe in the judiciary? Why did the law minister go to court? In the Narad case, this question was debated all day on Monday. The question now is why the four-weight bail in Malaya is now on the backfoot. In the bench of 5 judges, only the public opinion is concerned with the idea and counter-argument.

Nothing has been done properly since the arrest of the four accused in the Narad case on May 16 until their bail was granted, allegations by the CBI. Protests outside the Nizam’s Palace, throwing stones and creating chaos, the Solicitor General claimed. Reaching the CBI court along with the law minister and other office bearers and then granting bail to 4 persons. The CBI has appealed to the apex court on May 16 to quash all proceedings in the special court to break the notion that anyone can be granted bail if such an idea is created. A five-day hearing was held in the High Court’s bench on Monday. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, a lawyer for Firhad Hakim and Subrata Mukherjee, said in a question on the same day that the CBI wanted to exclude all other issues under the guise of mob rule. However, even today, he has to be plagued by the questions of four judges of the larger bench.

Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal threw the question and wanted to know that the protest outside the CBI office is not of any ordinary people. The protest in the CBI office was of some supporters, who are in their constitutional positions. Why would the law minister go to the CBI court premises? He was not outside the court, but he remained in the CBI court premises. Does he usually go to the CBI court premises? Raising the bar of questions, Justice Soumen Sen wanted to know how an influential person like the law minister could go to the CBI court premises and exert any influence in the judicial process. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, a senior advocate in the north, said one was a cabinet minister and the other was an MLA in 50 years. So the MLAs came out in support of them. Justice Indraprasanna Mukherjee wants to know if the plaintiff (CBI) saw the other party go to the judge’s chambers, come out from there and he himself (CBI) is stuck in the office, then he will not think that the judiciary is biased? Or will this idea not affect the judge?

Responding, Abhishek Manu Singhvi told the court that the May 18 incident was a natural reaction to a political action by the CM and other office bearers. However, this normal reaction was not against the court, it was against the CBI. That is what can happen in a democracy. We are proud of our country’s growing democracy. That’s why it takes more time to build buildings or highways here than in China. We are 10-12 years behind for democracy. Adding to the discomfort, Justice Harish Tandon asked if the ministers who were sworn in five days ago would go and oppose it, would it not affect the public opinion? Where was the need for demonstrations? Abhishek Manu Singh’s reply was that neither the Chief Minister nor the rest of the ministers had any confidence in the law. Demonstrations have been shown against the CBI. Their colleagues went to explain it together.

The Narad case will be heard in the Calcutta High Court again on Tuesday. However, this day is also a bit uncomfortable for the state. When the Advocate General informed the state of the submission of the affidavit, the Acting Chief Justice said, “The affidavit of the State is unnecessary at this moment.” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was questioned on behalf of the CBI, also vehemently opposed the state affidavit. The Advocate General argued that the affidavit on May 16 was about law and order in the Nizam’s Palace. For the time being, the state bench has set aside the affidavit and informed the hearing.

ARNAB HAZRA