Table of Contents
Four tendered cases on the defendant that month were brought in front of this Supreme Court bench and withdrew.
Of late a bench of the Supreme Court has come across a plenty of politico-sensitive cases being put on fast track by the order of the authorities while on another hand some of the petitioners for the bail and others remain dissatisfied with the immediate repeated denial of hearing.
The fact that the recent withdrawal of the important cases listed before the Bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal has led one to question the possible reasons behind the legal strategy is a clear indication of someting wrong.
In the month of February, Khalid, who was a 2020 Delhi riots UAPA case undertrial was backing off from the bail application he had moved for at the Supreme Court.
Saudade Head the three-member bench of judges comprising Mr Justice Trivedi and Mr Justice Mithal, Senator Advocate Kapil Sibal requested a leave to dismiss the bail application. Sibal pointed out the “changed circumstances” and said he would be seeking the relief in the court of trial. The Court, thereby, granted him the permission to withdraw the plea by asking for the withdrawal of his guilty plea.
Justice Trivedi had mentioned in the past that a fair time to hear the case and deliver a judgment without further delay was necessary. It was a matter concerning one’s life and liberty.
In the nine months that Khalid had filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court, his bail plea was postponed 14 times.
From the totality of these 14 adjournments, we have at least 4 adjournments that were filed by Khalid’s lawyer team, including one joint request submitted by his lawyer and Delhi Police. The Supreme Court was obliged to defer the examination by the hearing five times. Furthermore, one of the hearings was deferred due to the logistics problem and another one was requested by the Delhi Police.
Justice Pankaj Mithal had underlined the fact that the Court should not give an impression that it was not willing to hear the matter when in fact it’s been called for by the lawyres.
The case of Babu, one of the accused in the 2018 Bhima Koregaon violence incident, may shed light on how the circumstantial changes influence one’s legal career. The lawyer had also said that they would petition the High Court for a bail again. The apex court headed by Justice Trivedi has granted same-sex marriage elite institution stood for the same.
Babu was arrested in the month of July 2020 on the ground that he was a party member of Communist Party of India (Maoist) and that he was also involved in a manner which is alleged to be a conspiracy of assassination of the prime minister Narendra Modi.
The Bombay High Court turned down the petition for his bail in September 2023 and the case went to the Supreme Court for the next level of the appeal.
While seeking the response of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) with regards to the regular bail plea filed by Delhi University faculty member in January this year, the Apex Court granted interim bail to Delhi University librarian in a separate case.
Even, the same bench of the highest court was also involved in the Dalit and woman’s rights activist Shoma Sen, the second accused in the Bhima Koregaon case.
On May 10, All India Trinamool Congress Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Manik Bhattacharya asked for a permission to withdraw his petition that challenged the Calcutta High Court’s bail refusal in the money laundering case related to the cash-for-jobs scam.
the Apex court permitted Bhattacharya to send another petition to the High Court accompanied with additional documents, and ordered the HC to consider the case afresh and make a decision at the earliest possible time.
Addressing Mrs. Senior Advocate Luthra, Justice Trivedi pointed out the judicial procedure that “the court can only rely on documents that were part of the records filed before the High Court, not on any new filings”.
Malik, an accused in the Delhi Riots conspiracy case, decided to withdraw his bail plea from the Supreme Court on May 10.
The Delhi High Court on April 22 rejected petition for the grant of bail to Malik to who the court noted is an accused presented in a case where parties openly discussed topics related to riot-like violence and burning the Indian capital.
His arrest by the Delhi Police was on 25th June, 2020 and filed multiple cases of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and also with UAPA provisions.
The Supreme Court was to deal with the problem when it came before it and, in fact, Trivedi, the justice who was one of the members of the court, said that she was not sure that it was necessary to cancel the orders of the courts below.
Malik later filed and withdrew his amended petition.
The Bench headed by Justice Bela M Trivedi has recently become a subject of public discussion because it spoke out in politically-sensitive cases against giving of bails.
In November 2023, Justice Trivedi was the head of the bench that did not give bail to Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji on medical grounds.
The judge, Trivedi, who denied the sick Balaji bail, which was delivered to him by the Enforcement Directorate, argued,
“As per my black-and-white vision, your ailment does not seem like a very serious “condition” or actual big deal.” Now, it is like appendix. I wondered what word had caught my attention. It seems curable to me.
In March, another bench led by Justice Trivedi had also refused to grant bail to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain in a money laundering case. The High Court by a verdict had Jain to surrender forthwith. This direction the Chief Justice sat at the bench. The court had also dismissed the bail application of Ankush Jain who was Jain’s other co-accused.
Proving that no bail was granted in politically sensitive matters, the Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Trivedi had rejected the bail plea of K Kavitha who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with the Delhi Excise Policy case. The Court retorted that the majority of people need a clear process when they are a candidate for public office.
These observations with nullptr to bail were passed following the accusations of “sudden transfer” from one bench to another.
In an open letter to Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave expressed the opinion that many cases which were being heard by a particular bench were shifted out and listed before other benches in violation of the Supreme Court Rules and the Handbook on Practice and Procedure of the Court which govern the listing of cases.
In addition, the court’s deliberation focused on the fact that the two Justices, Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, took over the case all of a sudden although it had been heard for already ‘three dates’ which was made on a bench with Justice Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi.
Contrary to this, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi on behalf of the accused is of the opinion that the appellant bail stands dismissed in Satyendar Jain’s case as well. In December 2023, Singhvi asked for the case to be deffered till Justice AS Bopanna returns from leave until the bench headed by Justice Trivedi hears it.
“This case had Justice Ashok S Bopanna as the court of law presiding over it. The caution on his wife’s face was the only sound that he was able to hear for 2. 5 hours. Currently, the case is listed before Justice Bela Trivedi as Singhvi stated.
Nevertheless, CJI Chandrachud stated the answer from his side that although ‘insensitivity and indifference appear to be a social phenomenon of our times, the law lies at the heart of safeguarding our collective memories and preserving community’.
“Please be informed that I won’t be able to have a direct influence on a even of a judge, who is responsible for the case concern.” The judge who has the case will be the one who will make the decision. I cannot. My inbox continuously pings….I don’t dare to take a call…”
The answer to the protests against appointments of justice Trivedi that was from a higher level in the Supreme Court was that the “bench and judge hunting” which could be a reason for loss of “Supreme Court (as it is) cannot be a lawyer-driven court” would be thwarted.
The thing to keep in mind is that bail in these cases – under PMLA and UAPA – is a difficult thing to get, as the conditions for bail in these statutes are very stringent. However, these statutes might spell the beginning of the exception to the rule, which suggests that bail stays the rule and jail becomes the exception. Is it the courts that are on trial for denying the accused the rights to bail?
No matter what the reason for the recent summer-summer withdrawals, only time will reveal whether this trend will be a continuation or not
