New Delhi, December 5
The Supreme Court today posted for Monday the hearing on former Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal and his son Sukhbir Singh Badal’s petitions, seeking the transfer of the trial in a corruption case against them outside the state and their release on bail.

A Bench comprising Mr Justice S Rajendera Babu and Mr Justice G.P. Mathur expressed its inability to hear the petition stating that it had already been marked for hearing by an “appropriate” Bench on December 15.

The court, however, advanced the hearing for Monday when the counsel for the petitioners Harish Salve said the matter required to be heard urgently as the former Chief Minister, who is the leader of the Opposition in Punjab Assembly, was remanded to judicial custody even when he voluntarily had appeared before the special court at Ropar on December 1 without being arrested.

The Badals have also sought immediate stay on the special court’s order remanding them to judicial custody.

“The person (Badal), an old man, is in jail and he has himself surrendered before the court,” Salve, during the brief arguments, said while pressing for the early hearing of the petitions for the bail of the two accused as well as for the transfer of the case.

Seeking the shifting of the case outside the state on the ground that fair trial was not possible under the present state government, headed by Capt Amarinder Singh, the Badals said the case against them was a “classic illustration” of the growing tendency in the Indian polity of abuse of state machinery through hand-picked officers by the party in power to persecute its political opponent.

“The Chief Minister of Punjab has grossly pursued his political vendetta to harass the former Chief Minister and the present leader of the Opposition ... and his family,” said the special leave petition (SLP), filed by Badal on the affidavit of his daughter-in-law Harsimrat Badal.

The father and the son alleged that the state government and its probe agencies had conducted the investigation in the case with a “mala fide intention” without preliminary inquiry before registering the FIR, and no “mandatory sanction” had been obtained from the appropriate authorities to prosecute the leader of the Opposition as well as Sukhbir Singh Badal, a Rajya Sabha MP.

They challenged the special court’s order remanding them to judicial custody and rejecting their plea for interim bail, contending that the special judge had “erroneously” came to the conclusion that it had no power to grant interim bail when the application of the accused persons for the regular bail was pending.

Stating that they had appeared before the special court in compliance of the summons to face trial and was not likely to flee from justice, the Badals said “the trial court has sent the petitioners to jail in a matter where the investigation is complete with the filing of the chargesheet ... and they were never arrested during probe”.

They also challenged the special judge’s jurisdiction to hold trial against them, stating that the case could be heard under the Prevention of Corruption Act by a judge who has been appointed for the area where the alleged offence was committed.

Alleging that the complainant in the case against them was a Congressman and the power of attorney holder of the Chief Minister’s media advisor, the petitioners said “he had sold land for him (media advisor)... and the complaint was filed two days after he was appointed the Director of the Punjab Land Development Reclamation Corporation”.

“The complainant had submitted a vague complaint to the Chief Minister who forwarded it to the Chief Director Vigilance Bureau for action, who ordered the registration of the case on the very same day and FIR was lodged at 7:30 (on June 24) in the evening.”

“The haste with which the complaint was acted upon clearly shows the predetermined mindset of the investigating agency,” Badals said adding that right after assuming office, Amarinder Singh’s “sole agenda was to unleash the might of the state on the Opposition so as to eradicate it completely.”

The mala fide intention was reflected from the fact that the Vigilance Bureau’s case against the petitioners was that their disproportionate assets were around Rs 3,500 crore, while a press release issued by the Bureau mentioned the amount as Rs 4,326 crore. “Strangely the chargesheet states that the disproportionate assets at Rs 78 crore,” the petitioners said.