Sheila will have to defend herself in graft case: HC
28 Feb 2014 5:11 AM IST
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday said that former chief minister Sheila Dikshit will have to defend herself in a graft case and did away with Delhi government pursuing the appeal filed by her administration in 2013 against the trial court order for lodging an FIR against her.
Days before resigning, the Arvind Kejriwal government had on 14 February (when it resigned) moved the High Court seeking to take back the appeal filed by then Congress government headed by Dikshit.
Dikshit had moved the High Court opposing the plea of the Kejriwal government and had also sought her impleadment in the matter. Justice Sunil Gaur allowed the petition filed by the AAP government that the state should not pursue the appeal and at the same time permitted Dikshit to be impleaded as a party and she be substituted as a petitioner in the main petition challenging the trial court order.
‘Upong hearing both sides on these applications, I find that in the main petition seeking quashing of order dated August 8, 2013 and August 31, 2013 is sought. Vide order of August 8, 2013 a fresh report was sought from concerned SHO in the complaint case regarding steps taken in pursuance to the complaint made to the concerned SHO and vide order of August 31, 2013 a direction has been issued to register FIR on the complaint of June 6, 2013 against known and unknown persons.
‘It is apparent from the complaint in question that prosecution of Shiela Dikshit, the then chief minister of Delhi, was sought in the complaint in question on the basis of report of Lokayukta,’ justice Sunil Gaur said.
‘In above background, application of the petitioner-state (AAP) is allowed and petitioner is permitted not to pursue this petition. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, application of Dikshit is allowed and she is substituted as petitioner in the main petition,’ it added.
AAP government had said Dikshit will have to defend herself as she is no more the CM and the government lacked the ‘locus standi’ to fight for her.
Opposing the move, Dikshit had in her plea said the act of the appellant/petitioner/state is unconstitutional in as much as there has been no change in the facts and circumstances of the present case which has necessitated the state to file withdrawal application.
Seeking the impleadment of Dikshit as a party, her lawyer Mehmood Pracha, had said ‘the act of the state...would adversely affect the right of Sheila Dikshit as one of the affected parties.’
The AAP government, which resigned after the controversy over passage of the Jan Lokpal Bill, had highlighted its stand against corruption and said the cabinet’s decision to take back the appeal was approved by the Lt Governor.
The previous Congress government had gone to the high court in September last year against a lower court order to register an FIR against Dikshit on a complaint of BJP leader Vijender Gupta alleging her administration misused public funds to the tune Rs 22.56 crore in an advertisement campaign ahead of 2008 assembly polls. The order was stayed by the high court. The then AAP government had in its plea said ‘the appeal was filed by the petitioner, i.e the ‘state’ on the premise that it had the locus (standi) to defend Dikshit who was the then chief minister of Delhi.
‘In view of changed circumstances and formation of new government, the then chief minister ceases to hold the post and, therefore, the state i.e government of National Capital Territory of Delhi no longer has the locus standi to continue the prosecution of the present petition on her behalf.’
Days before resigning, the Arvind Kejriwal government had on 14 February (when it resigned) moved the High Court seeking to take back the appeal filed by then Congress government headed by Dikshit.
Dikshit had moved the High Court opposing the plea of the Kejriwal government and had also sought her impleadment in the matter. Justice Sunil Gaur allowed the petition filed by the AAP government that the state should not pursue the appeal and at the same time permitted Dikshit to be impleaded as a party and she be substituted as a petitioner in the main petition challenging the trial court order.
‘Upong hearing both sides on these applications, I find that in the main petition seeking quashing of order dated August 8, 2013 and August 31, 2013 is sought. Vide order of August 8, 2013 a fresh report was sought from concerned SHO in the complaint case regarding steps taken in pursuance to the complaint made to the concerned SHO and vide order of August 31, 2013 a direction has been issued to register FIR on the complaint of June 6, 2013 against known and unknown persons.
‘It is apparent from the complaint in question that prosecution of Shiela Dikshit, the then chief minister of Delhi, was sought in the complaint in question on the basis of report of Lokayukta,’ justice Sunil Gaur said.
‘In above background, application of the petitioner-state (AAP) is allowed and petitioner is permitted not to pursue this petition. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, application of Dikshit is allowed and she is substituted as petitioner in the main petition,’ it added.
AAP government had said Dikshit will have to defend herself as she is no more the CM and the government lacked the ‘locus standi’ to fight for her.
Opposing the move, Dikshit had in her plea said the act of the appellant/petitioner/state is unconstitutional in as much as there has been no change in the facts and circumstances of the present case which has necessitated the state to file withdrawal application.
Seeking the impleadment of Dikshit as a party, her lawyer Mehmood Pracha, had said ‘the act of the state...would adversely affect the right of Sheila Dikshit as one of the affected parties.’
The AAP government, which resigned after the controversy over passage of the Jan Lokpal Bill, had highlighted its stand against corruption and said the cabinet’s decision to take back the appeal was approved by the Lt Governor.
The previous Congress government had gone to the high court in September last year against a lower court order to register an FIR against Dikshit on a complaint of BJP leader Vijender Gupta alleging her administration misused public funds to the tune Rs 22.56 crore in an advertisement campaign ahead of 2008 assembly polls. The order was stayed by the high court. The then AAP government had in its plea said ‘the appeal was filed by the petitioner, i.e the ‘state’ on the premise that it had the locus (standi) to defend Dikshit who was the then chief minister of Delhi.
‘In view of changed circumstances and formation of new government, the then chief minister ceases to hold the post and, therefore, the state i.e government of National Capital Territory of Delhi no longer has the locus standi to continue the prosecution of the present petition on her behalf.’
Next Story
