New Delhi, Jan 16 (PTI) Supreme Court judge Justice K V Viswanathan on Thursday recused himself from hearing coal scam cases, paving way for a fresh three-judge bench to decide a crucial issue arising from previous orders that barred the high court from entertaining appeals.

The apex court passed two orders in 2014 and 2017 restricting the accused from approaching the high court and had directed that appeals against trial court proceedings in the coal scam cases could only be filed in the top court.

The intent behind the orders was to expedite trial processes by preventing delays and to stall the proceedings by the accused seeking relief in high courts.

While taking up the pleas seeking modification of its earlier orders, a bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and Viswanathan, at the outset, said a fresh bench will be set up to decide the issue in the week commencing February 10.

Justice Vishwanathan said he was in “the Common Cause (the NGO which had filed the PIL in coal scam cases). This case was of the ED (Enforcement Directorate), but still…”.

The bench deliberated upon the scope of appeals and the applicability of earlier orders restricting high courts from hearing these cases and asked the apex court registry to prepare a comprehensive compilation of all pending petitions related to 2014 and 2017 judgments that had barred the high court from hearing interlocutory appeals.

“The registry shall prepare a compilation of all cases where the special leave petitions (SLPs) are filed in terms of judgments of this court in 2014 and 2017… “The fresh bench shall exclude Justice Vishwanathan and shall be formed in the week commencing February 10,2025. Key question will be: Whether or not one who seeks stay of trial will not go by the procedure of CrPC but instead file a SLP in the Supreme Court,” the order said.

During the hearing, senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for the Enforcement Directorate, informed the court that 45 complaints, including supplementary ones, are currently pending under the PMLA. He said 20 cases are before the top court as well.

Singh highlighted concerns that when discharge orders are passed for one individual, they may have a cascading effect on others in related cases.

Senior Advocate RS Cheema, who appeared for the CBI, said out of 50 cases, which are prosecuted by the CBI, 30 have been decided.

Cheema emphasised the need for clarity on whether appeals should be directed to the high court or the Supreme Court.

The bench stressed the need to streamline procedures, stating that appeals against discharge orders should ideally go to the high court.

Lawyer Prashant Bhushan, appearing for NGO ‘Common Cause’, underscored that the top court’s jurisdiction should primarily address stays on trials, while other matters could be resolved at the high court level.

Earlier, the bench had asked the CBI saying, “Is this the stand of the CBI that everything should come to us.” “We also want to have the benefit of Delhi High Court orders passed in these cases," the bench had said.

Bhushan had said the earlier orders were passed to ensure that the trial does not get impeded by the accused by moving the high court against interlocutory orders passed by the trial court.

The top court in 2014 quashed 214 coal blocks allocated by the Centre between 1993 and 2010 after taking note of the PILs and ordered a trial by a special CBI judge.

The bench had directed that any prayer for a stay or to impede the investigation or the trial could only be made before the Supreme Court, effectively barring other courts from entertaining such pleas.

Another bench headed by Justice Abhay S Oka earlier issued a notice to the Enforcement Directorate seeking clarification on whether the bar imposed by its earlier decision — restricting any prayer for a stay or impeding the progress of investigation/trial in Coal block allocation cases to the top court alone — also applies to complaints filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

It was submitted whether the bar outlined in earlier orders needed clarification, particularly whether it extends to cases under the PMLA linked to the coal block allocation scam.

The CBI filed 57 cases in the coal scam. Several consequential money laundering cases were also filed. PTI SJK SJK DV DV