Produce papers to show Pune judge had jurisdiction over Elgar case: Bombay HC to Maharashtra govt

The Bombay High Court on Thursday directed the Maharashtra government to produce documents or record to show that sessions judge KD Vadane who took cognisance of a chargesheet filed by the Pune police against lawyer Sudha Bharadwaj and some of her coaccused in the ElgarParishadMaoist links case had the jurisdiction to do soA bench of Justices SS Shinde and NJ Jamadar gave the direction after noting that the records produced by the high court registry matched with the claim made by Bharadwaj that Judge Vadane was not a designated special judgeThe bench was referring to the claim made by Bharadwaj through her counsel senior advocate Yug Chaudhry in her plea filed in the HC seeking default bailEarlier this week Chaudhry had told the HC that Judge Vadane was an additional sessions judge but he had pretended to be a special judge and remanded Bharadwaj and eight others to Pune polices custody in 2018Also Read India rejects criticism over handling of Father Stan Swamys caseJudge Vadane had also taken cognisance of the chargesheet filed by the police in the case even though he had no jurisdiction to do so Chaudhry had saidHe had placed replies that Bharadwaj had received from the high court and the Maharashtra government authorities showing that Judge Vadane had never been designated as a special judgeAt the time the HC had said it wished to confirm the same with the records of the high court registryOn Thursday the bench said the registry record matches with what is submitted in the petitionChaudhry then said that since Bharadwaj and others had been charged under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act UAPA only a designated special court could have taken cognisance of their caseHe said in cases of scheduled offences such as those under the UAPA a sessions judge has the power to take cognisance only if there exist specific instructions from the Principal District Judge PDJAt this the bench asked the Maharashtra governments chief public prosecutor Aruna Pai to show if there existed such an orderShow us any document through which PDJ gave powers to Vadane to hear the matter the bench saidThe bench said there were documents to show that while the Pune police took the case and the chargesheet before Judge Vadane designated special judges were officiating in special courts in Pune at the timePai sought time and said she will provide an answer to the court after taking instructions from relevant authoritiesThere is no explanation coming from the government The IO investigative officer should have explained why he didnt go to a special judge Chaudhry maintainedThe court also asked Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh who appeared for the National Investigating Agency NIA to respond to the claims made by ChaudhryThe Elgar Parishad case of 20172018 which was earlier handled by the Pune police was later handed over to the NIA and its trial was shifted to MumbaiBharadwaj was arrested in August 2018 and placed under house arrest She was taken into physical custody by the Pune police in September 2018 The NIA took over the investigation in January 2020On Thursday ASG Singh told the HC that he did not agree with Chaudhrys submission that only a special judge could have taken cognisance of the caseHe said offences under UAPA were serious and hence the focus must be on their early disposalThe purpose for this Act UAPA is to punish the offender There has to be expeditious and early disposal of cases Nothing is above national security Singh saidSpecial judges are not different from sessions judges It is a sessions judge who is appointed as a special judge So he is not not competent to handle such cases he saidThe HC adjourned further hearing on the plea to July 15Bharadwaj has said in her plea that since Judge Vadane had no jurisdiction over the case he couldnt have remanded her and her coaccused to the Pune polices custody taken cognisance of the chargesheet and denied them bailThe HC has tagged similar pleas filed by Bharadwajs coaccused Arun Ferreira Anand Teltumbde and Sudhir Dhawale through advocate R Sathyanarayan raising objections to Judge Vadanes jurisdictionThis story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed agencies Midday accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability trustworthiness reliability and data of the text Midday managementmiddaycom reserves the sole right to alter delete or remove without notice the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever