00:00Abhishek Manu Singhvi, he appeared, he was part of the team. There were other lawyers also like
00:06Rebecca John, Mr. Hari Aran and others who were there defending the accused. And Abhishek Manu
00:12Singhvi, how do you react to those who say that this case does discharge is different from acquittal?
00:18This is a discharge based on lack of evidence in the case. The CBI conducted a shoddy investigation.
00:26Witnesses were not good enough. And therefore, that's the reason lack of evidence that has led
00:31to a discharge. It doesn't mean acquittal. That's the point the BJP is trying to hammer home today.
00:37In the same sentence, I agree with them. And I also feel sorry at their lack of legal understanding.
00:45Let me explain why. The whole point is that discharge is a stage which is higher in favor
00:53of the accused than either acquittal or conviction. Discharge means that you, Rajdeep, have no case
01:01to answer. Discharge means that the case brought against you, the charge, the arop, the allegation
01:07against you is not good enough, strong enough, high enough, backed by sufficient evidence to
01:13deserve to go to charges framing and therefore to trial. So discharge is the highest form of
01:20acquittal for the accused and the lowest form of a slap in the face of the prosecution.
01:26But let me now explain to you very briefly. I know the time is sure, but your viewers must
01:29know this. What happened was, they'll flow from one statement, which many of you may not
01:33have read. It's a 600-page judgment. It's come today. I must read para 469. Quote, unquote.
01:38The case record reflects a premeditated and choreographed exercise with roles retrospectively
01:47assigned to suit a preconceived narrative and finds it particularly disturbing that public
01:53servants were prosecuted solely on inadmissible hearsay attributed to an approver despite no
02:00material against them. Now this is where the rub lies. What happened in this case was the
02:05design perfection by the BGP-controlled agencies who were obviously wanting preconceivedly to come
02:12result of a new design in criminal law never in 75 years. This was the approver design of
02:18criminal prosecution, which is why this case fell down like a pack of cards. So you and
02:22I are accused, Rajdeep. You and I. I am the person thereafter. They arrest you first. You are then
02:29kept behind bars. You are then not given bail. The government, the prosecutor, the agency vociferously
02:36opposes your bail on the record. Then after six months of torture of you behind bars, you are then
02:44you suddenly one fine morning magically become an approver. More magically, the very next day on the
02:51record, the same prosecutor who opposes you on bail concedes bail to you. You come out and you start
02:56singing like a canary against me. And then I am the one supposedly charged only on the basis of
03:03approver evidence. Now, you know, our forefathers are very wise, Rajdeep, Privy Council and Supreme
03:09Court forefathers. They are judgments which have this very evocative phrase. The lowest form of
03:14evidence is that of an approver. He's the cheapest, the most unreliable because he's speaking in self
03:19interest on a biased, conflicted road. So you can have approver evidence, but you must get
03:25circumstantial additional evidence to make a case. Here what they did was they found it convenient.
03:29They have two or three approvers. And therefore they caught that. And that's why the case fell
03:34because there was no other evidence. And I've just let you a para of the judgment.
03:37No, no. You see, but the question therefore arises, the question Dr. Singhvi that arises,
03:45I'm sorry to bring in your other hat. You're also of course a congressman.
03:49I'm speaking as a lawyer. Your own party is saying there's a deal. No, no, no, no, no,
03:52one minute. Let me interrupt you. No, no, you can't, you can't. No, no, no, one minute,
03:55one minute. You are a lawyer, but you're also a politician. You must be asked that question.
03:59Then why is your party saying there's a deal between the government and, no, no, sir, I have
04:04gone through the order. If as you're giving the detailed order, is there a belief that this
04:09order has been done in a manner to allow Mr. Kejriwal to get away? That's what your party is
04:13saying. Then why don't you explain to your party that this is purely on the mix of law?
04:17Can I speak now, Rajdeep? I like, I know that you would love this sensationalism.
04:21I know that you would love to have these conflicts started. No, it's not sensationalism.
04:25You forget, you forget that from 2021, I've been appearing in the main liquor policy,
04:32gain with writs for file to state. I've appeared for all the bails which these people got in
04:36the Supreme Court. I've appeared for the CBI cases and the ED cases. So I am speaking here
04:41not on the politics of it. I am speaking only on facts. The fact of the matter is a para
04:45I've
04:45read. The fact of the matter is that the approver model was perfected. The fact of the matter
04:50is that there is another para which says that you only use evidence by way of adjectives.
04:56Overarching control and kingpin. That doesn't make you guilty of a conspiracy. That's the word
05:02used for Kejriwal. Overarching control and kingpin. But where is the evidence? Then again,
05:08then again, they have again and again said that policy failure is not criminality. Making
05:16a profit is not illegality. Where is the quid pro quo? Now the only sentence they plucked
05:20out in the judgment is a Magunta statement which says, go and meet Kamita.
05:24Yes. They say that you have to show some quid pro quo. Where is the movement of money?
05:29Where is the quid pro quo in that sentence? So therefore these are hard facts. My point
05:34is a little different Rajdeep. This happened because there is a great hurry to do something
05:42for these people, against these people and therefore you moved fast without collecting circumstantial
05:48additional evidence. And therefore the court has come down heavily and it also tells you a very
05:53important message. Far from screaming headlines, far from selective leaks to friendly newspapers.
06:00When the law's light shines, then you get to the hard core facts.
06:07No, no. In conclusion, therefore I must ask you again, Dr. Singhvi, are you saying therefore,
06:14because the CBI is now going in appeal to the higher court. They are saying there is certain
06:18material facts that the present court has not accounted for while delivering the judgment.
06:25So the battle will go on. The legal battle will go on. It comes back to the process being the
06:29punishment in this country.
06:31No, no, no. There is something there. You must know and your viewers will be interested to know.
06:33Absolutely. The high court can, in a final hearing, reverse this judgment. Just like the Supreme Court can reverse the
06:40high court.
06:41But what is forgotten is, and again you are not being told the correct law, that the law of the
06:48land in several Supreme Court judgments,
06:49the last one being six months old, by a bench of Justice Oak. A discharge order should almost never ever
06:58be stayed.
06:59So a discharge order cannot normally in law be stayed, unless there are some extraordinary circumstances.
07:05Now, you can therefore have to wait till you get a reversal from the high court.
07:10Today, the status is that there is no case in law or fact which exists on pen or paper. None.
07:19Now, when and if and when the high court reverses on a final hearing.
07:23There is no interim stay, normally 99.99% in a discharge case. That's what the law of the Supreme
07:29Court says.
07:29Okay. Okay. And are you saying also therefore the money laundering, are you also saying that the money laundering case
07:37involving the ED also collapses as a result?
07:40It has already collapsed. As you know, everybody agrees. That is why they are going to move the high court
07:45quickly.
07:46Everybody agrees that there cannot be a superstructure without the foundation.
07:50The so-called predicate offence has been discharged today. No predicate offence, no ED.
07:58Okay. Let me leave it there. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, you wear different hats, that of a politician, that of a
08:05lawyer.
08:05Maybe you should then ask the political party you belong to.
08:09Today only one hat.
08:11Today only one hat.
08:12Today you can wear one hat. Okay. I will hope that you will also wear your other hat and tell
08:18us in the future how you respond to your party saying it's a deal.
08:22Today we will watch all citizens do not highlight this at night do saying it's a hotel that heats up
08:22no sooner one of allucht, unless it has written one of those martha and one Bettis game.
Comments