•  •  Dark Mode

Your Interests & Preferences

I am a...

law firm lawyer
in-house company lawyer
litigation lawyer
law student
aspiring student
other

Website Look & Feel

 •  •  Dark Mode
Blog Layout

Save preferences

Delhi HC requests new district court to ‘videograph’ 1984 riots trial, as transfers case for ‘avoidable controversy’

In camera
In camera
The Delhi high court requested Delhi’s Patiala House district court to video-record the trial in the 1984 riots case, in a case transfer order won by senior advocates Colin Gonsalves and HS Phoolka for riot victim Joginder Singh.

Justice Siddharth Mridul, in his 30 November order, allowed Singh’s petition for transfer of the case in which Congress leader Sajjan Kumar and the CBI are respondents. Transferring the case from Delhi’s Karkardooma district court to Patiala House, justice Mridul observed:

“With the consent of the parties appearing before this court the District and Sessions Judge, Patiala House is requested to video-graph the entire proceedings in the subject trial to be conducted before it.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents undertakes to cover the entire costs of the said video recording.

The offer is accepted and the private respondents are directed to file an undertaking in this behalf before the District and Sessions Judge, Patiala House, on the next date of hearing.”

Gonsalves and Phoolka were briefed by advocates Kamna Vohra, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Divyajyoti, Gurbaksh Singh and Shilpa Dewan, for Singh. Singh had, according to PTI, alleged that the Karkardooma court judge was not recording evidence in his case properly.

Court-recording crusader and advocate Deepak Khosla, acting for Sajjan Kumar, had in his counter affidavit opposed Singh’s transfer petition and asked for “exemplary costs and heavily deprecatory censure” and initiating perjury proceedings against Singh and his advocates and senior advocates. Requesting video-recording of the trial, Khosla submitted in his counter affidavit:

“the only way for this honourable Court to protect the dignity and authority of its subordinate Presiding Officers from such scurrilous and scandalous attacks is to allow video-recording of the court proceedings (or at least audio-recording), at least in the instant case.

The need for video-recording in the instant case is all the more acute because of […] incidents of gross abuse which have taken place in these proceedings in the past, and were widely reported in the media, leading to a diminution in the standing of the Hon'ble Judiciary in the eyes of the common man, and erosion in his belief in the Rule of Law”

Justice Mridul, while allowing Singh’s transfer petition, noted that Singh has “unconditionally withdrawn” all allegations against the Karkardooma judge and therefore the Delhi high court’s order is not a comment on the conduct of the district judge.

He noted in the order:

“[…] it would be necessary and expedient to transfer the subject case in the interest of justice, in view of the avoidable controversy that has been unnecessarily generated and list it before another criminal court of equal jurisdiction.

It is made clear that the transfer of this case from the court of District and Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, is warranted in order to protect and uphold the dignity and majesty of the judicial system and to ensure the faith of citizens in courts of law.

The direction proposed to be issued is with a view to render the judicial officer immune from controversy and to protect his impeccable reputation. It is, therefore, reiterated that the present order is not a comment on the conduct of the judicial officer hearing the present case save and except to reaffirm the faith that the public reposes in that judicial officer.”

Advocates DP Singh, Tarannum Cheema, Raj Kiran Vats and Hiral Gupta were acting for the CBI.

Khosla was a party to court video-recording history being made earlier this year when on his insistence, as an advocate in the case, Calcutta high court allowed video-recording to be made of the chamber proceedings in the case.

Picture by Pixabay

Click to show 2 comments
at your own risk
(alt+c)
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.