English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Delhi HC dismisses Swamy’s ‘political interest litigation’ in Sunanda Pushkar’s death case

Published

on

Subramanian

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Court witnessed heated arguments between Swamy and Justices S Muralidhar and IS Mehta who told him to be extremely circumspect in sharing petitions with media

The Delhi High Court, on Thursday, dismissed the public interest litigation (PIL) filed by BJP MP Subramanian Swamy seeking a court-monitored SIT investigation into the mysterious death of Sunanda Pushkar, wife of Congress MP Shashi Tharoor.

Questioning the locus standi of Swamy in the case and strongly chastising him for the allegations he made against Shashi Tharoor and the Delhi Police, the Division Bench of Justices S Muralidhar and IS Mehta also asked the BJP MP and his co-petitioner Ishkaran Bhandari to “be extremely circumspect in placing such a petition in the public domain even before it is properly considered by the Court”.

The judges were peeved at the fact that Swamy had reportedly made his entire petition public, through his social media accounts and the media a day before it was first heard by the court on July 12, 2017.

Through the proceedings of the case on Thursday, Swamy and the Bench entered into heated arguments with the former often attempting to emphasise on his understanding on the law and his social profile – that of a former law minister of India. The Bench was clearly not impressed with Swamy’s arguments and during verbal observations – and later in the written order too – said that his petition “is perhaps a textbook example of a ‘political interest litigation’ dressed up as a PIL”.

At one point during the arguments, Subramanian Swamy told the judges: “This is not my first PIL. I have appeared before many courts. I have filed several petitions in the past. Many of them are reported judgments and I have been successful in most of them. I have also been the Law Minister of the country.”

While the court kept insisting that it wanted to hear the case on the basis of facts and merits and sought Swamy to furnish evidence to support his claims of the Delhi police botching up the investigation into Pushkar’s mysterious death at the behest of Tharoor, who was a union minister at the time of his wife’s demise, the BJP leader failed to present any document to support his allegations.

In its verdict, the court noted: “Nothing has been placed on record (by Swamy) to probablise, let alone substantiate, the vague and sweeping allegations made in the petition. Dr. Swamy was asked whether he had any basis for alleging that the investigation was “botched” by the Delhi Police at the “behest of rich and influential”. He was also specifically asked if, indeed, he had any information in his possession as to who these persons are. In response, Dr. Swamy stated that he would file a further affidavit to substantiate the above as well as other sweeping allegations referred to hereinbefore (sic).”

The Bench went on to say in its order that: “The failure by Dr. Swamy to disclose the full facts and information in his possession, assuming that his assertion in this regard is right, is a fatal lapse. It is contrary to the assertion made by him in the affidavit.”

The court then came down heavily on Swamy, who it said “likes to be thought of as a veteran PIL petitioner”.

Terming his petition as a “textbook example of a political interest litigation”, the Bench said: “The Court should be careful in not letting the judicial process be abused by political personae for their own purposes… That is not to say that no political person can file a PIL. It is only that, in such instances, particularly where the principal allegations are against political opponents, the Court should be cautious in proceeding in the matter.”

In an effort to ensure that petitioners in future do not file PILs like the one filed by Swamy in the Sunanda Pushkar death case, the Bench ordered: “hereafter every writ petition (which includes a PIL petition) filed in the Registry (and not obviously a letter or post card) should be supported by an affidavit which, apart from complying with the legal requirements in terms of the governing Rules of the High Court, should clearly state which part of the averments (with reference to para numbers or parts thereof) made (including those in the synopsis and list of dates and not just the petition itself) is true to the Petitioner’s personal knowledge derived from records or based on some other source and what part is based on legal advice which the petitioner believes to be true.”

While the sternly worded order of the court left Swamy with little to say in the courtroom, the BJP leader – with his reputation for making outlandish claims on a variety of issues – took to Twitter later in the day to rant against the setback her received from the Delhi High Court and also to take a dig at his detractors.[/vc_column_text][vc_raw_html]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[/vc_raw_html][vc_raw_html]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[/vc_raw_html][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

DU VC Prof Yogesh Singh entrusted with additional charge of AICTE Chairman

Published

on

By

Prof. Yogesh Singh, Vice Chancellor of the University of Delhi, has been entrusted with the additional charge of the post of Chairman, AICTE till the appointment of a Chairman of AICTE or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

It is noteworthy that AICTE Chairman Prof. TG Sitharam was relieved of his duties after his term ended on December 20, 2025. According to a letter issued by the Ministry of Education, Government of India, on Monday, Prof. Yogesh Singh’s appointment is until the appointment of a regular AICTE Chairman or until further orders whichever is earlier.

Prof. Yogesh Singh is a renowned academician with excellent administrative capabilities, who has been the Vice-Chancellor of University of Delhi since October 2021. He has also served as the Chairperson of the National Council for Teacher Education. In August 2023, he was also given the additional charge of Director of the School of Planning and Architecture (SPA).

Prof. Yogesh Singh served as the Vice-Chancellor of Delhi Technological University from 2015 to 2021; Director of Netaji Subhas Institute of Technology, Delhi from 2014 to 2017, and before that, he was the Vice-Chancellor of Maharaja Sayajirao University, Baroda (Gujarat) from 2011 to 2014. He holds a Ph.D. in Computer Engineering from the National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra. He has a distinguished track record in quality teaching, innovation, and research in the field of software engineering.

Continue Reading

India News

Goa nightclub fire case: Court extends police custody of Luthra brothers by five days

A Goa court has extended the police custody of Saurabh and Gaurav Luthra, owners of the nightclub where a deadly fire killed 25 people, by five more days.

Published

on

Luthra brothers

A court in Goa on Monday extended the police custody of Saurabh Luthra and Gaurav Luthra, the owners of the Birch by Romeo Lane nightclub, by five more days in connection with the deadly fire incident that claimed 25 lives on December 6.

The order was passed as investigators sought additional time to question the two accused in the case linked to the blaze at the Anjuna-based nightclub.

Owners were deported after fleeing abroad

According to details placed before the court, the Luthra brothers had left the country following the incident and travelled to Thailand. They were subsequently deported and brought back to India on December 17, after which they were taken into police custody.

Advocate Vishnu Joshi, representing the families of the victims, confirmed that the court granted a five-day extension of police custody for both Saurabh and Gaurav Luthra.

Another co-owner sent to judicial custody

The court also remanded Ajay Gupta, another owner of the nightclub, to judicial custody. Police did not seek an extension of his custody, following which the court passed the order, the victims’ counsel said.

The Anjuna police have registered a case against the Luthra brothers for culpable homicide not amounting to murder along with other relevant offences related to the fire incident.

Continue Reading

India News

Delhi High Court issues notice to Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi in National Herald case

Delhi High Court has sought responses from Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi on the ED’s plea challenging a trial court order in the National Herald case.

Published

on

The Delhi High Court has sought responses from Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi on a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the National Herald case. The petition challenges a trial court order that refused to take cognisance of the agency’s prosecution complaint.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja issued notices to the Gandhis and other accused on the main petition, as well as on the ED’s application seeking a stay on the trial court’s December 16 order. The high court has listed the matter for further hearing on March 12, 2026.

The trial court had ruled that taking cognisance of the ED’s complaint was “impermissible in law” because the investigation was not based on a registered First Information Report (FIR). It observed that the prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was not maintainable in the absence of an FIR for a scheduled offence.

According to the order, the ED’s probe originated from a private complaint rather than an FIR. The court further noted that since cognisance was declined on a legal question, it was not necessary to examine the merits of the allegations at that stage.

The trial court also referred to the complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and the summoning order issued in 2014, stating that despite these developments, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) did not register an FIR in relation to the alleged scheduled offence.

The ED has accused Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, late Congress leaders Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, and a private company, Young Indian, of conspiracy and money laundering. The agency has alleged that properties worth around Rs 2,000 crore belonging to Associated Journals Limited (AJL), which publishes the National Herald newspaper, were acquired through Young Indian.

The agency further claimed that Sonia and Rahul Gandhi held a majority 76 per cent shareholding in Young Indian, which allegedly took over AJL’s assets in exchange for a Rs 90 crore loan.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com