Supreme Court junks plea to resume trial of Delhi women panel chief Swati Maliwal

A bench led by justice Surya Kant underlined that the March 10 order of the Delhi high court staying the prosecution of the AAP leader is only an interim order

The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to order the resumption of a trial court’s proceedings against Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) chairperson Swati Maliwal in a case concerning graft allegations against her for appointing people acquainted with her or those associated with the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in the women rights body between July 2015 and August 2016.

Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) chairperson Swati Maliwal is accused of appointing people acquainted with her or those associated with the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in the women rights body between July 2015 and August 2016. (HT Archive)

A bench led by justice Surya Kant underlined that the March 10 order of the Delhi high court staying the prosecution of the AAP leader is only an interim order, and that the Delhi Police’s Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) still has the opportunity to bring all relevant facts before the high court when the matter is taken up next on July 26.

“Since the impugned order dated March 10, 2023 is only an interim order based on a prima facie view, we are not inclined to interfere with this order at this stage. Suffice to state that the petitioner shall file an affidavit before the high court within a week. It goes without saying the high court shall appreciate the contentions from both sides and shall finally decide the matter at the earliest and preferably on the date fixed,” stated the bench, which also included justice JK Maheshwari.

Senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Maliwal, submitted that the high court has already fixed the matter for a hearing in July and that he has no problem if the case is finally decided on that day.

The case was registered on a complaint of former DCW chief and an ex-Congress MLA Barkha Singh Shukla, who made allegations of irregularities in women rights body during Maliwal’s tenure. ACB investigated the case and filed a charge sheet against four people, including Maliwal. The agency claimed that against 26 sanctioned posts, she appointed 87 persons in the DCW during the impugned tenure, out of whom most were acquaintances or party workers or associated with her and the AAP.

In December last, the trial court had framed charges under Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code and multiple offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act against Maliwal and DCW members Promila Gupta, Sarika Chaudhary, and Farheen Malick.

After Maliwal appealed, the high court, in its order on March 10, observed that prima facie, the “essential ingredient of offence under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, namely obtaining of any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage is evidently missing” from the charge sheet and that the order on charge framed by the trial court against Maliwal accordingly requires “closer consideration”.

Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act defines instances of criminal misconduct by public servant wherein the person obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.

Maliwal did not respond to HT’s request for a comment.