Dramatic scenes in Kerala High Court

Kochi: The  court room 5C of Justice Kemal Pasha witnessed dramatic scenes  when the controversial bar bribery case came up for hearing on Monday.

After the conclusion of arguments from both sides,  single judge Justice Kemal Pasha started pronouncing the verdict at 12.15 noon.

When the court mentioned about the trial court judgment touching on the facts of the case, Mr  Kapil Sibal and AG Dandapani raised objections which led to further heated debate.

The judge stopped his dictation to his personal secretary and observed, “I am ready to delete the paragraph.” However, Mr  Sibal and the AG submitted that they were  ready to argue the merits of the case. The judge said he was  willing to hear the matter.  

“I thought the government has  no objections to other aspects rather than the trial court's remarks on the Vigilance director,” the judge  orally observed.

Mr Sibal asked Mr Dandapani,  “what do you think?” (whether to argue or not). Mr  Dandapani then sought an adjournment for a detailed hearing. A visibly angry judge said,   “I am going to dispose of the case today itself.”

The court also observed,  “even I am concerned about the case because my money and public money is involved.   Dandapani has also become defensive since the Vigilance director was forced to take legal opinion from two Supreme Court lawyers.”

The court started its proceedings at 10.15 am. Mr   Dandapani submitted  that  senior counsel Kapil Sibal would be appearing for the Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Bureau.

The court heard the arguments of  Mr  Sibal who appeared for theVACB  and senior lawyers Gopala Krishna Kurup and Ranjith Thampan for  Mr V.S. Achuthanandan and CPI leader V.S. Sunil Kumar respectively.

The court patiently heard all the contentions put forward  by Mr  Sibal and the opposing lawyers.  Mr Sibal's prime argument was that the Vigilance manual had  given ample power to the Vigilance director to interfere with the investigation. 

“If the Vigilance court order is accepted then the Vigilance directorate would virtually become a post office,”  he observed. Meanwhile counsel for VS argued that only the state can challenge the trial court order. Opposing the contentions, Mr  Sibal argued that the government had passed an  order empowering the VACB to challenge the trial court order.    
 

 

 

Download the all new Deccan Chronicle app for Android and iOS to stay up-to-date with latest headlines and news stories in politics, entertainment, sports, technology, business and much more from India and around the world.