Neta asks judge to be impartial, lands in trouble | india | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Jul 21, 2017-Friday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Neta asks judge to be impartial, lands in trouble

From job placements to school admissions, a letter of recommendation plays a key role. But sending such a letter to a court regarding a judgment it is going to pass is a different ball game altogether.

india Updated: Dec 11, 2009 00:42 IST
Sumit Saxena

From job placements to school admissions, a letter of recommendation plays a key role. But sending such a letter to a court regarding a judgment it is going to pass is a different ball game altogether.

The former president of a Delhi-based political party has invited the ire and a show-cause notice from a judge for requesting him to “conduct an impartial enquiry” in the case.

Metropolitan Magistrate Devender Kumar Jangala said he was “surprised” to see the letter at the top of judicial records last week.

An angry Justice Jangala issued a show-cause notice to Sanjoy Sachdev, former president of Delhi Pradesh National Panthers Party.

He asked in the notice, “Why shouldn't contempt of court proceedings be initiated against you for attempting to prejudice and interfere the due course of judicial proceeding?”

The letter addressed to the judge had said: “May you kindly take appropriate action in the matter after conducting an impartial enquiry.”

The judge said, “I don’t need recommendation to make judgments.”

A resident of Jaitpur in Badarpur, Kavita, whose husband is a Delhi Police constable, has alleged that the Badarpur police station SHO along with ACP Sarita Vihar have framed her family in a false case in conspiracy with her tenant Pankaj Kumar.

Kumar had reportedly lodged an FIR stating his landlord threw him and his family out of the house without giving any notice.

In this context Sachdev had sent a letter to the judge. He said, "I wrote the letter to get an impartial judgement for the poor. Courts need assistance to identify what's right and wrong."

The court observed that the complainant did not appear in person despite repeated calls but attached the letter.