Senthilbalaji case | Third judge frames three questions to be answered by him after hearing arguments on July 11 & 12
The Hindu
Justice C.V. Karthikeyan, the third judge named by Madras High Court Chief Justice S.V. Gangapurwala to hear a habeas corpus petition related to arrested Minister V. Senthilbalaji following a split verdict delivered by two judges of a Division Bench, on Friday framed three crucial questions to be answered by him after hearing arguments on July 11 and 12
Justice C.V. Karthikeyan, the third judge named by Madras High Court Chief Justice S.V. Gangapurwala to hear a habeas corpus petition related to arrested Minister V. Senthilbalaji following a split verdict delivered by two judges of a Division Bench, on Friday framed three crucial questions to be answered by him after hearing arguments on July 11 and 12.
The three questions were: Whether the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) is authorised to subject an accused person in a money-laundering case to custodial interrogation? Whether the habeas corpus petition filed by the Minister’s wife Megala is maintainable? Whether the ED can subject the Minister to custodial interrogation even after expiry of 15 days from arrest?
The questions were framed after Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, representing the ED, and senior counsel N.R. Elango, appearing on behalf of the habeas corpus petitioner, submitted before the court separate tabulations listing the points on which Justices J. Nisha Banu and D. Bharatha Chakravarthy of the Division Bench had differed on July 4.
Though Justice Karthikeyan was keen on counsel commencing arguments before him on Saturday itself and the Solicitor-General, too, expressed his eagerness to argue the matter during the weekend, Mr. Elango sought an adjournment till July 11 for accommodating senior counsel Kapil Sibal on behalf of the petitioner.
The Solicitor-General expressed difficulty in making his submissions on Tuesday since cases against abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution had been listed before the Supreme Court that day. Finally, the judge decided to hear Mr. Sibal on July 11 and Mr. Mehta on July 12 before reserving his verdict.
During arguments on framing of questions, Mr. Mehta contended that the third judge need not answer whether the ED should have followed the procedure of issuing a notice of inquiry under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before arresting the Minister, because there was no difference of opinion between the two judges on this aspect.
The Solicitor-General said Justice Banu had not given any opinion on this issue; therefore, it could not be considered a point of difference of opinion between the two judges on the Bench. However, Mr. Elango insisted that the petitioner be allowed to argue on this point since it was connected to the maintainability and entertainability of the habeas corpus plea.
With increased terminal entry points (eGates) at Mumbai International airport from 24 to 68, which is the highest number of e-gates at kerbside or landside in the country, the expansion will enhance the airport’s processing capacity to an astounding 7,440 passengers per hour at Terminal 2 (T2) and 2,160 at T1