Govt urges SC not to give direct relief in scam cases

NEW DELHI: The Centre on July 6 filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court suggesting there was a trend of people accused in highvalue economic offences approaching the top court directly — instead of an appropriate court — to get protection from arrest, and that in 44 such instances, the court had granted relief to them, affecting the ability of investigative agencies to go about their probes into these cases.

It wanted the court to address the issue, vacate the interim relief orders, and ask the petitioners to follow the prescribed legal route by appearing before lower courts.

The affidavit was filed in a matter pertaining to Bhushan Steel Ltd, involving the company’s former CFO Nittin Johari, and maybe taken up by a bench headed by CJI SA Bobde on July 24.

The list of cases appended in the affidavit include the Bhushan Steel Ltd case involving an amount of ~20,000 crore, a bank fraud case against Nilesh Parekh of Shree Ganesh Jewellers worth ~2,762 crore, a case against Vikram Kothari of Rotomac worth ~3,770 crore. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta brought up the issue on Wednesday, speaking of how agencies are finding it difficult to do their work because of the accused often approaching SC for relief -- and getting it.

NEWDELHI:The Union government on July 6 filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court suggesting there was a trend of people accused in high-value economic offences approaching the Supreme Court directly — instead of an appropriate court — to get protection from arrest, and that in 44 such instances, the court had granted relief to them, significantly affecting the ability of investigative agencies to go about their probes into these cases.

It wanted the court to address the issue, vacate the interim relief orders, and ask the petitioners to follow the prescribed legal route by appearing before the appropriate lower courts.

The affidavit was filed in a matter pertaining to Bhushan Steel Ltd, involving the company’s former CFO Nittin Johari, and may be taken up by a threejudge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) SA Bobde on July 24.

The list of cases appended in the affidavit include the Bhushan Steel Ltd case involving an amount of ~20,000 crore, a bank fraud case against Nilesh Parekh of Shree Ganesh Jewellers worth ~2,762 crore, a case against Vikram Kothari of Rotomac worth ~ 3,770 crore, and other such matters.

However, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta brought up the issue on Wednesday while representing the Union government in a case against Jinofer Bhujwala, arrested in June 2019 in a ~134 crore Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB) fraud case, and spoke of how investigative agencies are finding it difficult to do their work because of the accused often directly approaching the apex court for relief — and getting it. The CJI has asked for a list of such cases heard by different benches and has listed the matter “along with other similar matters” for two weeks from now.

Mehta referred to around 60 cases under investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, Companies Act and GST Act etc, including the case against former finance minister P Chidambaram, and the former promoters of Bhushan Steel.

He argued that in these largescale financial frauds, the accused were consciously not resorting to the remedy available under the law — applying to the court of sessions or high court for bail – under section 438 of the CrPC (criminal procedure code) or other statutory remedies. Mehta declined to comment. Senior advocate and Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi told HT that he was ready to argue the issue.

“I am appearing in more than one case, including P Chidambaram and DK Shivakumar. The mere dates for listing and hearing have been given. We are ready to argue. Significant issues of law are raised, and we would welcome a decision on such significant issues of law. The issues are important, not individuals,” he said.

To be sure, Chidambaram’s case may be different. The former finance minister first moved the Delhi high court for bail. After the court rejected it, he appealed to the Supreme Court. He adopted the same route for anticipatory bail. The high court rejected it, and he was arrested while waiting to be heard by the SC.

GOVT ASKS COURT TO VACATE RELIEF ORDERS, DIRECT PETITIONERS TO FOLLOW PRESCRIBED LEGAL ROUTE, THROUGH THE LOWER COURTS