The Supreme Court on Friday ordered continuation of the trial in the National Herald case against Congress president Sonia Gandhi, vice-president Rahul Gandhi and others but exempted them from personal appearance and expunged remarks made against them by the Delhi High Court on the merit of the charges. The trial judge is expected to begin framing of charges in the case on February 20.
The Gandhis, who were represented by senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, had sought quashing of proceedings. The case involved a complaint by BJP senior leader Subramanian Swamy alleging cheating and fraud on part of the Gandhis for misappropriating party funds.
The Bench of Justices JS Khehar and C Nagappan said there was no ground to interfere with the ongoing trial and gave liberty to all the accused to raise their objections at the stage of framing of charge. However, the Bench agreed to grant interim relief by exempting personal appearance of the Gandhis and others on the next date of hearing before the trial judge. It also expunged certain remarks made by the Delhi High Court judge in his order refusing to interfere with the trial. The judge, in his order of December 7, 2015, had castigated the Gandhis by suggesting that their criminal intent was prima facie made out.
At the outset, the Bench said, “We are not happy with what the High Court judge has observed.” Striking out the observations damning the petitioners even when the trial was to take place, the Bench said, “let there be a fair trial… It was not open to the High Court to record final conclusions which it ought to have left to the trial judge. What the judge has said can prejudice the trial.”
On the court’s decision to grant them personal exemption, Swamy objected citing a Supreme Court judgment of 2011 in TGN Kumar case which had held it is the Magistrate who must consider passing any order for exemption.
This course was open for the accused to depose and seek exemption on February 20, Swamy added.
The Bench said, “There will be much chaos if they are to appear.” Moreover, the Bench said that it needs to be satisfied that the petitioners are not running away and can be called on a particular occasion. Passing the order in favour of Gandhis, the Bench said, “In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, specially the position occupied by the petitioners we are of the view that the presence of petitioners before the trial court will cause more inconvenience than convenience. Accordingly we direct that the petitioners shall be exempted from personal appearance during trial.” The Bench left it open to the Magistrate to summon the accused as and when it required at any stage of trial.
Sibal and Singhvi who were accompanied by a battery of senior lawyers made several legal arguments suggesting that in a cheating case, PIl was not maintainable. Sibal said that none of the members of the Congress of shareholders of the company Associated Journals that holds National Herald have complained. In his view, Swamy was not an aggrieved person as required under law to file a complaint. The Court allowed the counsels to raise these issues at the stage of framing of charge.