English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

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

Published

8 years ago

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]

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

India News

Amit Shah counters delimitation concerns, says southern states to gain Lok Sabha seats

Amit Shah assures Parliament that southern states will gain Lok Sabha seats after delimitation, countering opposition criticism during the women’s reservation debate.

Published

5 hours ago

on

April 16, 2026

By

Amit Shah

Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Thursday addressed concerns over the proposed delimitation exercise, asserting in the Lok Sabha that southern states will not lose representation but instead see an increase in their number of seats.

His remarks came during a heated debate linked to the implementation of women’s reservation, where opposition parties have raised fears that population-based delimitation could reduce the political weight of southern states.

Shah rejected these claims, calling them misleading, and said the proposed framework ensures fairness while expanding the overall strength of the Lok Sabha.

Seat count to rise with expansion of Lok Sabha

The government has indicated that the total number of Lok Sabha seats could increase significantly as part of the delimitation process. In this expanded House, the combined representation of southern states is expected to rise from 129 seats at present to around 195 seats.

Shah emphasised that no state will lose seats in absolute terms, and the exercise is designed to reflect population changes while maintaining balance across regions.

State-wise projections shared in Parliament

During his address, Shah also provided indicative figures for individual southern states, suggesting notable increases in representation. According to the projections:

  • Tamil Nadu could see its seats rise substantially
  • Kerala, Telangana, and Andhra Pradesh are also expected to gain additional seats
  • Karnataka’s representation may increase as well

These figures were presented to counter the argument that delimitation would disproportionately favour northern states.

Political debate intensifies over linkage with women’s quota

The delimitation exercise has been closely linked to the rollout of women’s reservation, which proposes one-third seats for women in Parliament and state assemblies.

Opposition leaders have questioned this linkage, arguing that tying reservation to delimitation could delay its implementation and raise federal concerns. Some leaders have also warned that the move could impact national unity if apprehensions among states are not addressed.

The government, however, maintains that the reforms are necessary to ensure equitable representation and to align the electoral system with demographic realities.

Centre dismisses ‘false narrative’ on southern states

Shah reiterated that concerns about southern states losing influence are unfounded. He said the delimitation process will increase representation across regions and described the criticism as a “false narrative” aimed at creating confusion.

The issue is expected to remain a key flashpoint as Parliament continues discussions on the women’s reservation framework and related legislative changes.

Continue Reading

India News

PM Modi assures no discrimination in women’s quota, delimitation debate intensifies in Parliament

PM Narendra Modi has assured that women’s reservation will be implemented without discrimination, amid a heated debate over delimitation in Parliament.

Published

12 hours ago

on

April 16, 2026

By

PM modi

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has assured that there will be no discrimination in the implementation of women’s reservation, as Parliament witnessed a sharp debate over the proposed linkage between the quota and delimitation exercise.

During the ongoing special session, the government reiterated its commitment to ensuring fair representation while addressing concerns raised by opposition parties regarding the timing and structure of the legislation.

The proposed framework aims to reserve 33 percent of seats for women in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. However, its implementation is tied to a fresh delimitation exercise, which is expected after the next census.

Opposition questions timing and intent

Opposition leaders have raised concerns that linking the women’s quota to delimitation could delay its implementation. They argue that the process of redrawing constituencies may push the actual rollout further into the future.

The issue has triggered a broader political confrontation, with multiple parties questioning whether the move could alter representation across states.

Some critics have also alleged that the delimitation exercise could disproportionately benefit certain regions based on population, a charge the government has rejected.

Government reiterates commitment to fair implementation

Responding to these concerns, the Centre has maintained that the reforms are necessary to ensure accurate and updated representation based on population data.

Leaders from the ruling side have repeatedly emphasized that the process will be carried out transparently and without bias. The assurance that there will be “no discrimination” is aimed at addressing fears among states and opposition parties.

The debate marks a key moment in Parliament, with both sides engaging in intense exchanges over one of the most significant electoral reforms in recent years.

Continue Reading

India News

Give all tickets to Muslim women, Amit Shah says, attacking Akhilesh Yadav on sub-quota demand

A sharp exchange between Amit Shah and Akhilesh Yadav in Parliament over sub-quota for Muslim women highlights key divisions on women’s reservation implementation.

Published

14 hours ago

on

April 16, 2026

By

A heated exchange broke out in Parliament during discussions on the women’s reservation framework, with Union Home Minister Amit Shah and Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav locking horns over the demand for a sub-quota for Muslim women.

The debate unfolded as the government pushed forward key legislative measures to implement 33% reservation for women in the Lok Sabha and state assemblies.

Akhilesh Yadav argued that the proposed reservation must ensure representation for women from marginalised communities, including Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and Muslim women. He said that without such provisions, large sections could remain excluded from political participation.

He also questioned the timing of the bill, alleging that the Centre was avoiding a caste census. According to him, a census would lead to renewed demands for caste-based reservations, which the government is reluctant to address.

Government rejects religion-based quota

Responding to the demand, Amit Shah made it clear that reservation based on religion is not permitted under the Constitution.

He stated that any proposal to provide quota to Muslims on religious grounds would be unconstitutional, firmly rejecting the idea of a separate sub-quota for Muslim women within the broader reservation framework.

The government has maintained that the existing framework already includes provisions for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) women within the overall reservation structure.

Wider political divide over implementation

The issue of sub-categorisation within the women’s quota has emerged as a major flashpoint, even as most opposition parties broadly support the idea of women’s reservation.

Samajwadi Party leaders reiterated that their support for the bill depends on inclusion of OBC and minority women, while the government continues to defend its constitutional position.

The debate is part of a broader discussion during the special Parliament session, where multiple bills linked to delimitation and implementation of the women’s quota are being taken up.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com