Hit by allegations of having influenced the decision to transfer Teesta Setalvad’s anticipatory bail case from one Bench to another, Chief Justice of India Hl Dattu on Monday revealed that the decision to change the Bench was taken on “request” of one of the two judges hearing the matter.
At a hurriedly called Press conference by Registrar MK Hanjura, a statement was released on behalf of the Supreme Court denying reports that stated that transferring the case out of the Bench of Justices SJ Mukhopadhaya and NV Ramana was done without the knowledge of either of the two judges. This Bench last heard the matter on February 13 and by the next date of hearing on February 19, the matter stood transferred to a Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Adarsh Goel.
Hanjura said, “listing of matters is in the exclusive domain of Chief Justice of India. In regard to the bail case of Teesta Setalvad, it was done at the direct recusal of one of the Hon’ble judges (of the previous Bench).” When he was asked to name the particular judge to set the record straight, Hanjura refused to reveal the name.
When The Pioneer contacted senior judge on the Bench Justice SJ Mukhopadhaya for his comments, he refused to comment. He said, “I would not like to comment on the statement.”
Interestingly, the statement by the Supreme Court has given rise to more questions than answers. According to the Handbook on Practice and Procedure of Supreme Court, if a matter is adjourned by a Bench for subsequent hearing, it should be listed before the Presiding Judge of that Bench. If the Presiding Judge has retired or is not available, the matter is listed before the other judge who was a member of that Bench. Only when both the judges on the Bench have retired, the matter is listed through Computer, as per Subject Category.
If this rule was to be strictly applied, the CJI, on receiving request for transfer from one of the judges, ought to have shifted the case to another Bench of which the other judge present in the old combination was part of. Despite both the judges being present in Court (not having retired), it remains a mystery why rules were not followed in Teesta’s case and an exception created in assigning the matter to a fresh Bench altogether.