Refusing to stay the Delhi Commission for Women’s summons to AAP leader Kumar Vishwas, the Delhi High Court on Friday however, issued notices to Barkha Singh, chairperson, DCW and the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) volunteer on a plea moved by Vishwas seeking stay on the summons. DCW had issued summons to Vishwas on a party volunteer’s complaint alleging that her life was ruined since he was not rebutting “rumours” about their alleged illicit liaison.
Justice Rajiv Shakdher said, “Issue notice to Barkha Singh, DCW and also to the AAP volunteer, who has filed complaint before DCW.” The court also declined Vishwas’ plea that the summons should be stayed, saying “let the (respondents) come back first with their replies, then it will think over it”. While fixing the matter for further hearing on July 1, the judge said, “No, I will not stay the summons at this stage.”
The court also removed Delhi Government as a party in the case after the AAP leader’s counsel also failed to justify its presence in the matter. Delhi Government’s standing counsel Raman Duggal, who was present in the court on advance intimation given by the petitioner, also said that the Government is not required as a party in the present matter.
The court notices were issued after Vishwas filed an amended memo of parties, including the Delhi Government, on the direction of the court’s earlier order. The judge, however, on Friday asked Vishwas’ counsel Somnath Bharti to file a fresh memo of parties along with an application before it by following a proper procedure. While deleting the Delhi Government as a party from the case, the court noted in its order that a submission was made on behalf of the Government that it is not required in the matter.
The court also objected to Bharti’s contention about the media’s presence in the courtroom saying, “You should not get burdened (by) what is happening outside… This is a public hearing and it is something which allows the person interested in the matter to attend the hearings.” Earlier, on May 15 also, the court had refused to give any interim relief to Vishwas on his plea challenging the summons issued to him. The court was of the view that there was “defect” in the plea and had said that the AAP volunteer should have been made a party in the case as it was on her complaint that the summons was issued.