The Calcutta High Court adjourned till Thursday the hearing in the Narada sting tape case in which two West Bengal ministers, an MLA and a former mayor were arrested by the CBI.
This means, ministers Subrata Mukherjee and Firhad Hakim, Trinamul Congress MLA Madan Mitra and former city mayor Sovan Chatterjee will continue to remain in judicial custody.

The hearing on the bail application of the four Trinamul leaders was held on Wednesday along with the CBI’s petition to move the case from Bengal to elsewhere before a Calcutta High Court bench headed by acting chief justice Rajesh Bindal.

Both chief minister Mamata Banerjee and state law minister Moloy Ghatak have been made parties to the CBI case.

The CBI counsel, India’s solicitor general Tushar Mehta, argued pressure was being created through political means to delay justice in the case, citing the presence of the chief minister at Nizam Palace, the CBI office, and a dharna by Trinamul workers outside after the arrest of the leaders on Monday.

The counsel for the defence, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, raised questions on the very need to arrest the leaders on the day of filing chargesheet, and alleged that the CBI was citing Monday’s protest outside Nizam Palace as an excuse to keep the four arrested leaders in jail.

The case will be heard again on Thursday.

At the outset, the court asked Singhvi whether he was denying that the chief minister sat on a dharna in front of the CBI office and if it was a democratic means of protest. “You say the CM went to the CBI office to protest. Gandhian protest… peaceful protest. But is it the way to respond when the matter is considered by the court? By protesting in streets,” asked the acting chief justice Bindal.

Citing the example of the ongoing farmers' protest in Delhi, Singhvi said democratic dissent could not be stopped if the matter was before a court of law.

“There can be a response both legally and democratically. The case can be fought legally on merits and the issue of political vendetta can be protested democratically. It would be a negation of democracy to say that just because the matter is before court you cannot peacefully protest outside,” he said.

In his deposition, Singhvi argued that the CBI was using Monday’s protest outside the CBI office as an excuse to keep the four arrested leaders in jail.

“What is the duty of leaders? Should they stand to disperse the followers or to incite them?” asked the acting chief justice.

To this Singhvi replied that no leader should impede the course of justice. “I am saying there was an outpouring of emotion but that is being used as a pretext, as a sidewind. Unless such protests impede justice dispensation, it cannot be used to deny bail,” argued Singhvi.

“We pay democracy tax. We compare India and China. Democracy means there has to be some lack of order. That has to be permitted as long as it is not exhorting violence,” he said.

Four of the most well-known leaders of the Trinamul Congress, who have enjoyed proximity to the chief minister at various degrees over the last three decades or so, were arrested in connection with the Narada sting operation, where these four, along with several others, were purportedly caught on camera accepting bribes.

The sting carried out in 2014 by the news portal Narada News was made public in 2016.

On Wednesday, Mukherjee, Chatterjee and Mitra were at the SSKM Hospital’s Woodburn Ward, while Hakim was at Presidency Jail.

Referring to the events that unfolded on Monday when Mamata stormed the Nizam Palace compound and held fort for close to six hours while restive Trinamul supporters were pelting stones at police, the court asked the defence counsel whether these incidents did not add to the pressure on the CBI special court judge.

“The judge heard the matter and passed an order where there is no mention at all of these. There is no mention of any obstruction to hearing. The order records matter was heard virtually on consent of both sides,” Singhvi replied.

When the judges referred to state law minister Moloy Ghatak’s presence at Nizam Palace, the lawyers argued he was not present inside the courtroom. Singhvi also claimed that Mamata and Ghatak went to the CBI office not as ministers but MLAs, to which the court reminded him that the status of a minister was different from that of an MLA.

“I will take it. But in what manner it is said that he impeded the administration of justice. What is the fact which shows that the law minister standing in the court complex influenced the judge? Did he (judge) even know if the minister was there? There were many people. It is natural,” Singhvi said.

The acting chief justice, however, disagreed and observed that it was “not natural.”

Referring to the cases involving Hindi film actors Sanjay Dutt and Salman Khan, Singhvi argued the events of Monday outside the CBI officer were “an outpouring of emotions.”

He also argued that the chief minister was within her democratic right to exercise protest at the arrest of her colleagues. Singhvi questioned why the CBI did not make the arrests in these four years since the case was handed over to the agency.

He also claimed the arrests were the BJP’s “reaction to bitter election results” in Bengal.

“CBI sought sanction from the Governor to arrest Trinamul MLAs, which is illegal. As per Constitution Bench decisions, sanction has to be taken from the Speaker,” Singhvi said. “The MLAs felt that their colleagues were arrested on political vendetta because somebody could not digest defeat in the election.”

When Singhvi suggested that Monday’s order did not reflect the claims being made by the CBI’s counsel, the court asked whether the CBI special court judge should have recorded that he was being pressured.

“Recorded is the correct word. At least there should be a hint, a suggestion,” Singhvi said.

Appearing on behalf of the CBI, solicitor general of India Tushar Mehta argued that the situation prevailing in Bengal was “unprecedented.”

“There were unprecedented, extraordinary circumstances. I don’t think anywhere else in the country such shocking incidents have happened where a premier investigating agency, which has been entrusted with the investigation by this court, is stopped from doing its job,” Mehta said, adding that the events were an abuse of the process of law as the agency was prevented from arguing before the special court and filing charge sheet.

Singhvi countered that it was an impression that was being created. “Your lordships were given an impression that entire Calcutta was in flames, whereas they were arguing virtually before the special court,” he said.