2G: SC modifies 2011 orders, allows accused to move Delhi HC

The much-debated 2011 order that Supreme Court alone would hear pleas against the orders of the special CBI court in the 2G spectrum scam case was modified today, with the apex court permitting the accused and CBI to move the Delhi High Court against the final verdict, which is in the offing in the case.
The modification of apex court orders of February 10 and April 11, 2011, was directed by the bench headed by Chief Justice H L Dattu while dismissing the pleas of DMK MP Kanimozhi and Swan Telecom promoter Shahid Usman Balwa challenging the special CBI court's order framing charges against them in the sensational multi-crore rupees case.

The bench, also comprising Justices A K Sikri and R F Nariman, told senior advocates Salman Khursheed and Amrendra Sharan, appearing for Balwa and Kanimozhi respectively, that it would not decide their pleas "at this stage" as the trial court has concluded almost two-thirds of the trial in the 2Gcase.
"The court-appointed special public prosecutor says that the recording of evidence is over. Now final arguments have commenced. It would not be proper to deal with these," the bench said during the hearing.
"We decline to entertain this (Balwa's) petition. We will give you bigger relief. We will give the opportunity to go to the High Court against the final order of the trial court," it said as it made clear time and again that pleas can be filed in the High Court against the final verdict alone.

"We make it clear that the High Court shall not entertain any petition that may be filed against any interim order that may be passed by the special CBI judge," it said.
The special court, on October 22, 2011, had framed charges against former Telecom Minister A Raja, Kanimozhi and 15 others including top corporate honchos in the case under penal provisions relating to offences of criminal conspiracy, breach of trust, cheating and forgery.
Prior to this, the apex court, through its orders, had ordered setting up of a special court to hold hearing on a day-to-day basis and had made it clear that no other court except it would hear pleas against the order of the trial court.