War of Words between New Judge and Dr Swamy inside Delhi High Court on Sunanda Murder Probe

In an unexpected turn of events, Delhi High Court’s new Bench headed by Justice S Muralidhar on Thursday – October 26 – in its first day of hearing rejected BJP leader Subramanian Swamy’s petition seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) led Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe on Sunanda murder and related Indian Premier League (IPL) frauds. The past six hearings, in this case, were heard by a Bench headed by Justice G S Sistani, in which the judge was blasting Delhi Police for unexplainable delays in the murder case and agreed to Delhi Police’s assurance of a need of further eight weeks to conclude the probe.

Swamy reacted, “This is not my first PIL. I know how the court works. This is the first time I have been questioned like this. I have been a Law Minister. What you are asking me is tantamount to accusing me of concealing evidence.”

The Court witnessed a heavy war of words between Swamy and Justice Muralidhar who termed Swamy’s petition as politically motivated. Before allowing the arguments, the Judge started pointing out “faults” in the affidavit and admonishing Swamy’s co-petitioner Advocate Ishkaran Bhandari. Swamy intervened on the scene and engaged in a fierce battle of words with Justice Muralidhar saying that he doesn’t need a class on how to draft a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Swamy said he had won 28 PILs till date and that his cases were part of the legal lore and that many a judgment praised him for bringing out PILs that unearthed the truth.

The rise in temperature in the courtroom was palpable. Swamy, surprised by the line of questioning by the judge, asked him as to why he is not allowing time to rectify the affidavit in case there was a mistake, to which the Judge curtly turned it down and dismissed the case. Swamy said it was the duty of the Court Registry to find faults, if any, in his petition and to fix them in the affidavit before posting it before the Bench. He asserted that the previous Bench headed by Justice Sistani had not found anything wrong.

“This is perhaps a textbook example of political interest litigation dressed up as public interest litigation,” said Muralidhar during the heated exchange with Swamy. Swamy sought a time-bound probe in the case, saying “very influential people are involved in the case, leading to attempts to protect them, and that the matter has faced a lot of unnecessary delays already”.

But the court asked Swamy to explain the basis of the allegations since it involved a person who belongs to a rival political party.

The bench asked as to why Swamy has not presented evidence in support of his allegations in the petition. “Which part of your petition is based on your personal knowledge and which part is based on belief,” the court asked, saying Swamy cannot make such “sweeping allegations”.

The BJP leader sought time to file a separate affidavit to give details of the basis of his petition, saying he takes “100% responsibility” for what was said in the petition.

“You said in your affidavit that you have not concealed any information. Today, when we ask you to explain the basis of your allegations, you say you will file another affidavit. That means you have concealed information,” the bench remarked.

Swamy reacted, “This is not my first PIL. I know how the court works. This is the first time I have been questioned like this. I have been a Law Minister. What you are asking me is tantamount to accusing me of concealing evidence.”

Justice Muralidhar said Swamy did not mention he was a Member of Parliament (MP) of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and that Tharoor was a Congress MP. Swamy retorted back that he didn’t need lessons like this from the Judge, reminding that he was also a Law Minister. At one point Swamy said, that this is not the last word in this case and told the Judge to do whatever he wants.

Justice Muralidhar’s observation was that Delhi Police assured the court that it would conclude the probe in eight weeks and that there was no need for allowing Swamy’s petition for a CBI led Special Investigation Team.

Later talking to media, Swamy said he would wait for Delhi Police Final report to the Court, and would challenge it if the Police seek closure of the case. As per the law, Delhi Police has to file either a strong>closure reportor a chargesheet to the Court.

The interesting part, in this case, was that the previous Judge Justice G S Sistani was observing the need for a probe in the IPL frauds angle in the Sunanda Murder case. But the new Judge Justice Muralidhar did not consider that aspect at all. Later, talking to media, Swamy said this is perhaps one of the “worst judgments” in the legal history.

The 12-page order by the Delhi High Court is published below. Readers can read this and draw their own conclusions:

Delhi HC Order on Sunanda Case by PGurus on Scribd

• Author
• Recent Posts

Team PGurus

We are a team of focused individuals with expertise in at least one of the following fields viz. Journalism, Technology, Economics, Politics, Sports & Business. We are factual, accurate and unbiased.

Latest posts by Team PGurus (see all)

• Subramanian Swamy approaches Supreme Court on Govt’s modification of 2G Scam Judgment to avoid auction of Satellite Spectrum - April 23, 2024
• Defence Minister Rajnath Singh visits Siachen. Reviews military preparedness - April 22, 2024
• Amit Shah’s shares in the Stock Market almost doubled in the past five years - April 21, 2024