New Delhi: The Supreme Court has asked the Patna High Court Registrar-General to furnish in person on Wednesday details of the appointment of Munni Lal Paswan as special judge to try the disproportionate assets cases against Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav and his wife Rabri Devi.

A three-judge Bench comprising Justices K.G. Balakrishnan, A.R. Lakshmanan and S.H. Kapadia is hearing a petition filed by Sushil Modi, former Bharatiya Janata Party member of Parliament (now Bihar Deputy Chief Minister), and Rajiv Ranjan Singh, Janata Dal-United MP seeking cancellation of the bail granted to them in the fodder scam and disproportionate assets cases.

Earlier at the instance of the apex court, the High Court sent the records on the appointment of Mr. Paswan. During Tuesday's hearing the Bench wanted to get some more details from the Registrar-General of the entire process of appointment of 14 judges by the Full Court or by a committee of judges of the High Court, the minutes of its meeting and whether Mr. Paswan's appointment was cleared by the Full Court. For giving these details, the Registrar-General should be present in the court, the Bench said.

"Hurried disposal"

The petitioners contended that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal hurriedly disposed of a Rs. 45-lakh disproportionate assets case against Mr. Prasad and his wife, by deputing a member-judicial from Delhi to Patna for two weeks. No appeal was filed against this order.

"Clear interference"

Appearing for the petitioners, senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi said that when Mr. Prasad was granted bail in the fodder scam cases, the Central Bureau of Investigation, prosecuting agency, was given liberty to initiate proceedings for bail cancellation if interference took place or if he was found protracting the trial. After Mr. Prasad became a member of the United Progressive Alliance Government in May 2004, the public prosecutor, who had been conducting the fodder scam trial for 10 years, was shifted within a week and a retired police officer, with only five years of legal practice, appointed in his place. This was indicative of clear interference in the trial proceedings, counsel said.

He sought a direction that the apex court would monitor the trial of the cases; that a quarterly report of the progress of the trial be sent to it; that a new special judge be appointed and a direction issued to the Centre to file an appeal against the tribunal order.

"Frivolous plea"

Appearing for Mr. Prasad and his wife, senior counsel Ram Jethmalani said this was a fit case in which the court should impose exemplary costs on the petitioners for filing a frivolous petition full of lies and reckless allegations.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail