Justice Subramaniam then countered, “Have we committed a sin by accepting a judgeship? We are human too. Mr. T. Mohan, you may have other considerations you’re not disclosing. We understand that. However, please focus your arguments on the merits of the case.”
Chennai: On Tuesday (3rd Sept): The Madras High Court witnessed a heated debate regarding its decision to set aside a previous ruling that dismissed a money laundering case against a retired police officer.
READ ALSO: ‘Judges Being Judged’: Courts Battling Targeted Social Media Harassment
The money laundering case was filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against retired Indian Police Service (IPS) officer Jaffar Sait.
On August 21, the Bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and V. Sivagnanam had dismissed the ECIR filed by the ED. However, just two days later, the court decided to rehear the case, prompting the notification of all counsels involved. The reasons for this sudden reversal were a point of contention during the recent proceedings.
Senior Advocate T. Mohan, representing Sait, strongly questioned the court’s decision to recall the case, stating, “On August 23, there was no indication from your lordships regarding what prompted this change of mind.”
Justice Subramaniam responded,
“You should ask your junior; we have already informed him. We handle 150 cases daily and can’t recall every detail. Isn’t it unreasonable to expect us to remember what was said on a specific day or week? If we asked you what you said last week, would you remember?”
In response, Senior Advocate T. Mohan remarked,
“Lawyers have the privilege to forget, but judges, due to the nature of their role, cannot. It’s a heavy responsibility.”
Justice Subramaniam then countered,
“Have we committed a sin by accepting a judgeship? We are human too. Mr. T. Mohan, you may have other considerations you’re not disclosing. We understand that. However, please focus your arguments on the merits of the case.”
Mohan replied,
“Once the respondent asserts that the case has no remaining issues.”
Justice Subramaniam clarified,
“The respondent did not claim that nothing survives; he simply conceded. However, the Court has an obligation to thoroughly review the matter. We were taken aback by his concession, and upon further consideration, decided to re-hear the case. The Court has the authority to ask questions and re-examine the issues.”
The court’s decision to re-hear the case was confirmed following this exchange.
The same Bench, including Justices SM Subramaniam and V. Sivagnanam, that initially heard and dismissed the case, is now recalling it.
The ED Advocate informed the court that the offense in question had been quashed, leaving no grounds for further pursuit.
Justice Subramaniam acknowledged this, stating,
“Indeed, that is the case. We had instructed the court officer to notify all relevant counsels. It’s essential for everyone to be truthful.”
Senior Advocate T. Mohan requested,
“Please have the stenographer record all my statements to avoid any confusion. With utmost respect, I affirm that I have not made any statements contrary to the records.”
Mohan further stated,
“The previous order of quashing was issued in open court. Questions were directed to the ED by another bench on August 23, and no reasons have been provided for the change in position. As a legal officer, I must argue that it may not be suitable for this bench to oversee the hearing on this matter.”
The Court eventually reserved its order in the matter.
