As the apex court bench of Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan reserved the order, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) said that given the amplitude of the guilt involved in the case, the court was perfectly permissible in ordering that any plea arising from the 2G court's orders could only be brought before it.
Relying on Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and other provisions of the constitution, K.K. Venugopal, appearing for the CBI, said the apex court had not transgressed the law and what it did was "perfectly permissible".
Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, says that "no finding, sentence or order passed by a special judge shall be reversed or altered by a court in appeal ... unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned...."
The Reliance Telecom had earlier contended that its right to move the high court under Article 226 could not be taken away by the apex court as such a step was not in conformity with the basic structure of the constitution.
The petitioners had also sought the vacation of the Dec 9, 2012 order by which apex court stayed all the proceedings before Delhi High Court arising from the order of the 2G CBI special court.
The court said that the hearing of the other matter involving the challenge to the trial court's July 19 order allowing CBI's application summoning more witnesses would rest on its decision on the plea seeking the recall of April 11, 2011 order.
--IANS (Posted on 21-08-2013)