SC stays proceedings in all 2G cases in Delhi High Court
- L-G Najeeb Jung's 'I am the govt' remark laughable, acting at PM's behest: Arvind Kejriwal
- Robert Vadra's Facebook post triggers BJP, Congress clash; House adjourned
- Scolded by Sonia, Shashi Tharoor gets praise from PM Modi
- RK Pachauri asked to step down, Ajay Mathur is new TERI chief
- PM's credibility declining, no discussion until Sushma steps down: Rahul
The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the proceedings on all petitions relating to the 2G spectrum allocation scam, pending before the Delhi High Court, on a CBI plea.
"All proceedings pending before the Delhi High Court shall remain stayed," said a Bench of Justices G S Singhvi and K S Radhakrishnan.
In its plea, the CBI cited a Supreme Court order of April 11, 2011, which had directed that no court other than the apex court shall entertain any application relating to the case.
The court was informed that there were 20 petitions or applications pending before the high court after the filing of chargesheets in the 2G case.
The Bench issued notices and sought replies of various parties within six weeks on the CBI application.
The apex court had expressed its displeasure on November 8 that the Delhi High Court was hearing the matter relating to the 2G spectrum scam despite its order restraining courts below the apex court from adjudicating issues linked to the case.
"Despite injunction the Delhi High Court has entertained petition relating to the 2G spectrum case. It is very surprising on the part of the behaviour of the high court," the court had said.
CBI counsel K K Venugopal had said the Bench can pass an order and stay such proceedings.
The Bench said an application can be filed by the CBI so that it can give a clear-cut order. "We will hear your application," it had said.
"We will make it clear that no court will entertain any petition (on the 2G case)," the Bench had said after senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who is representing Essar Group in the case against them, sought clarification on the injunction.
Rohatgi had said the legal right available to the affected parties cannot be taken away and one such right was to approach the high court.