The Bench remarked that Chandrashekhar’s actions had made society unsafe, and that when an accused person files petitions alleging violations of their liberty, the Court must also think about the victims.
NEW DELHI: On Tuesday, 18th Feb: the Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by Sukesh Chandrashekhar, an alleged conman, who had asked for a transfer from Delhi’s Mandoli jail to a prison in his home state of Karnataka, or any nearby state.
A Bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and PB Varale gave their decision, emphasizing that the accused, in this case, had caused harm to society, and the Court also had to consider the rights of the victims.
The Bench remarked that Chandrashekhar’s actions had made society unsafe, and that when an accused person files petitions alleging violations of their liberty, the Court must also think about the victims.
“He made society so unsafe. Some people should also think about the other side. See what will happen to the victims. Every time, you are harping about rights of accused. Who will think of victims?” Justice Trivedi stated.
The Court also criticized Chandrashekhar for repeatedly filing writ petitions on the matter. According to the judges, this kind of behavior was an abuse of the legal process.
“It may be noted that prior to the filing of this writ petition, three writs were filed not entertained by this court… We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. However, we cannot resist (from) expressing that the present petitioner (Chandrasekhar) has tried to misuse the process of law by filing writs one after another under guise of changed circumstances. This is abuse of process of law,”
the Bench said.
Justice Trivedi pointed out that Chandrashekhar had sufficient financial resources, which is why he kept hiring senior lawyers to argue his case. The judges noted that there is a limit to such abuse of the legal system.
“There is a limit to the abuse of process of law. You have money and that is why you keep filing such petitions. We will dismiss it with costs… You are (accused) in 27 cases and you say you are innocent? … The more you argue, higher will be the cost. He has all the money to hire all the senior counsel,” Justice Trivedi remarked.
Following the judgment, Chandrashekhar’s lawyer asked the Court to remove the harsh observations made against his client. However, the Bench refused.
“It is ok. We are harsh. We know that. Everyone cannot be the same. Something has to be said. You can again come back,”
Justice Trivedi responded.
Sukesh Chandrashekhar is a key figure in a multi-crore extortion scam, and was arrested in 2015. He and others, including his wife Leena Paulose, are accused of using Hawala routes to create shell companies and hide money from the crime’s proceeds. In his petition, Chandrashekhar had requested the Supreme Court to transfer him from the Mandoli jail in Delhi to a prison in Karnataka or a nearby state.
When the matter was heard, Justice Trivedi noted that Chandrashekhar’s grievance was initially against some officers in the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP)-led Delhi government. But with the recent change in the ruling party, there was no reason for him to have such grievances anymore.
“Your grievance was against a Delhi government officer. Now that grievance does not remain anymore,” Justice Trivedi said.
Representing Chandrashekhar, Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam argued that the transfer request was made so that Chandrashekhar could be closer to his family in Karnataka. He stated that this was a right under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
“This is my right under Article 21 to not be kept away from my family… How can I be kept in Delhi where there is no case against me? … I am not convicted in any case.. I am innocent,” Alam argued.
However, the Bench was not convinced by these arguments. Justice Trivedi explained that it was not just the rights of the accused that mattered, but also the safety of society.
“We are worried about society and its safety also. Your fundamental rights cannot be enforced at the cost of others. Look at the kind of allegations you levelled against the officers!” she said.
Alam also highlighted the emotional distress that Chandrashekhar’s family, especially his elderly parents, was facing due to the distance from him. He emphasized that Chandrashekhar was still an undertrial prisoner, and the criminal charges against him had not yet been proven in court.
“He is only a prisoner at the end of the day. I am an undertrial prisoner. I cannot be pushed to animal existence away from my family… My 77-year-old mother cannot see me,” Alam said.
Justice Trivedi, however, responded with a pointed remark, “Please see if your mother wants to see you at all like this or not.”
Alam continued to plead for mercy on behalf of his client, asking the Court to reconsider its decision.
“Please let me come back to this court,” Alam persisted.
But the Bench remained firm, stating that after so many proceedings, the Court could not entertain further requests.
“We will not. After so many proceedings, almost half of the bar was engaged by him,” Justice Trivedi said.
Alam expressed his frustration, remarking that there seemed to be a difference between media trials and judicial trials.
“There was a perception created … there is a difference between media and judicial trial. I am a victim of media trial,” Alam said.
Justice Trivedi firmly rejected this line of reasoning, responding, “No, we will not do anything.”
In the end, the Court dismissed Chandrashekhar’s plea for a transfer, closing the matter.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
