Calcutta HC: Do ‘illegal’ arrests give the right to ‘mobocracy’? – Times of India

KOLKATA: The Calcutta High Court, during hearing of the Narada case on Thursday, asked the senior counsel — who had been pleading that the CBI arrests of four leaders were illegal in the first place — that even if the arrests were “illegal”, did that justify the “mobocracy” in front of the agency office at Nizam Palace.
Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal, a member of the five-judge bench, said: “Even if arrests are assumed to be illegal, will they give a right to indulge in mobocracy?”
Senior counsel Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Madan Mitra, submitted that the special CBI court judge kept with the oath and decided without fear or favour. “Therefore, the argument of mobocracy is vitiated,” Luthra said.
He, instead, accused the CBI of not being “true or fair” to the court. “If I may use the expression, they (CBI) are lying through their teeth. I am trying to prove that their functionality was not affected in this case,” Luthra submitted.
Reading out from Mitra’s affidavit alleging breach of Constitution by the CBI, he said: “The CBI keeps harping that the accused were arrested from their homes. But if you look at the arrest memo, it says the arrest took place at the CBI office at Nizam Palace. Either the arrest memo is false or the affidavit is false.”
The larger bench didn’t want to go into the nuances of arrest or bail. “Bail may be decided by the special court. At this stage, can this 5-judge bench go into question of validity of arrest?” asked Justice Harish Tandon, a member of the larger bench.
The court wanted the senior counsel to concentrate on the CBI argument that post-arrest, there was an impediment that was created, which the agency termed “mobocracy”. Luthra submitted that the real test applicable in this case was Chapter 35 CrPC pertaining to irregular proceedings and argued that CBI’s claims were “brazenly false”.