RTL says SC order barring accused to move HC violative of FR
New Delhi: Reliance Telecom Ltd, an accused in 2G spectrum case, Wednesday told the Supreme Court that its anxiety to fast track the trial in the case by barring the High Court from hearing the issues arising out of the matter has infringed upong the fundamental rights of a person for equal protection before the law.
"This order could not have been passed," RTL's counsel Mulkul Rohatgi told justices G S Singhvi and K S Radhakrishnan.
RTL and other accused in the case have sought recall of the apex court's April 11, 2011 order which said "any prayer for staying or impeding progress of the trial can be made only before this court and no other courts shall entertain the same".
Rohatgi said this order was passed by the apex court in its anxiety to fast track justice but it has taken away the rights of the accused granted under Article 14 and 21 for fair trial and violates the rights held under the basic structure of the constitution.
He said the right under Article 226 of the constitution to move the High Court cannot be taken away as there has been an apex court judgement holding that Article 226 is a part of basic structire of the constitution.
"Equal protection and application of law to all persons equally situated is also the mandate of Article 14 and 21. Rights of accused in this case has been breached because other accused in normal cases have the right to move the High Court," Rohatgi said.
"My constitutional right to move the High Court under Article 226 cannot be taken away by any court or law," he said.
RTL and other accused filed the petition after a trial court here made Reliance ADAG Chairman Anil Ambani and his wife Tina Ambani as witnesses in the case along with 11 others.
Anil Ambani is to appear before the Special CBI court on August 22 and his wife has been summoned to appear a day later.
The company said in its plea that it amounts to violation of its fundamental rights as the order takes away the right to approach the High Court against the order of the trial court.
It said the order is contrary to law and constitutional provision.