In IGP Umaranagal case, HC judge recuses after heated hearing in the courtroom

Amidst a heated hearing in the court, the government submitted that 'a lot is to be said on how the matter is being conducted', and it concerns the 'reputation' of the High Court. The court was hearing the government's application to reschedule the hearing in the case to an earlier date. Earlier, during the last hearing on March 29, the government had objected to April 23 as the date being fixed by court master against a request for April 1. The government has contended that following its request on March 29, the court had orally directed the court master to give a date 'within the next 2-5 days'. The date, however, was modified to April 23 'on account of non-availability' of Umranangal's senior counsel. The government, in its application, said the date on the court website later showed July 2 as the next date after which state again appeared before the court master and the date was again set for April 23 as 'this had been requested by counsel for the petitioner'. It said the state was not heard when the order asking it to give seven days advance notice to Umaranangal was passed but now the 'convenience of the counsel appearing for the petitioner is being cited as a reason for the delay in listing' of the recall application. Additional Advocate General Rameeza Hakeem Tuesday requested the court that it may dispose of the application for recalling 'in case it is inclined not to hear the matter'. The court, in response, said the application for preponement is 'dismissed'. However, Hakeem asked the court to then pass a speaking order. While the court went ahead with dictation or recording of the 'facts of the case,' the government counsel insisted that her arguments be recorded. The court retorted, 'wait, madam' and observed that there was no need for running commentary. The government counsel responded, 'There is a lot to be said on how the matter is being conducted'. 'You are casting aspersions on the court,' responded Justice Ramendra Jain to which the government counsel said, 'I will speak from whatever is on the record and argue the facts'. The court then went ahead with the dictation of the order. In between, the government counsel also made an objection that the court was only hearing the petitioner's counsel and not the applicant. The court in the dictation said that the petitioner's counsel was not available on March 25 and more time was sought. Regarding March 29, the court recorded that the matter could not be heard that day as the bench was 'pre-occupied' with other cases on the 'heavy cause-list'. The court also said the matter was preponed to April 23 from July 2 on government counsel's request. At this time, Hakeem objected saying her request was to keep the case for hearing on April 1 and submitted that 'the stamp itself shows the fraud played' while referring to the corrections made in the order related to the fixing of dates. Hakeem added that the suspended officer was insulated from interrogation in a sensitive matter like murder and objected to keeping the case for hearing after a month. While the court was about to record that April 23 was fixed as the date on request, another government counsel present in the court also stood up and said that the court orally had said: 'do-paanch din ki date daal do'. While the court was recording the order, a verbal duel also ensued between Hakeem and Umranangal's counsel senior Advocate APS Deol who objected to the way the government counsel was making arguments. 'This is no way to argue the case. You are casting aspersions on the court,' he said to which Hakeem responded that she was only reminding the facts to the court. Justice Jain while stopping the dictation of the order midway observed that the 'tenor' of the government counsel was 'totally disrespectful' and let the matter be placed before Chief Justice for transfer of the case to other court. However the government's counsel retorted that there was no intention to cast aspersions on the court and if personal allegations had to be made then the state would have also quoted the court's oral observations of the last date of hearing where it was said said, 'You are unnecessarily behind the petitioner; you must give him some breathing time'. Justice Jain while taking up another case said, 'You tell it to the other judge…' DailyhuntDisclaimer: This story is auto-aggregated by a computer program and has not been created or edited by Dailyhunt. Publisher: The Indian Expresshttps://lookbook.nu/alifull