E-Paper
Gujarat HC grants interim stay on 2002 assault case against Delhi LG Saxena
Delhi LG VK Saxena, along with two BJP MLAs and a Congress leader, is accused of assaulting activist Medha Patkar at Gujarat’s Sabarmati Ashram on April 10, 2002
The Gujarat high court on Tuesday provided temporary respite for Delhi lieutenant governor (LG) VK Saxena by issuing an interim stay on any further proceedings related to the case concerning the alleged assault on social activist Medha Patkar in 2002.
Justice MK Thakker decided to suspend the ongoing trial against Saxena until his plea challenging the metropolitan court’s order, which denied his request to postpone the trial until he completes his term as the lieutenant governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, is pending and finally resolved.
Earlier on May 8, a metropolitan court in Ahmedabad had turned down the application of Saxena seeking immunity from a criminal trial until he leaves his current post.
Saxena, along with two Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLAs and a Congress leader, is accused of assaulting Patkar at Sabarmati Ashram on April 10, 2002. The incident occurred during a meeting aimed at promoting peace after communal riots broke out in Gujarat following the burning of a train coach, killing 59 Hindu pilgrims. A first information report (FIR) was registered against Saxena and the others for unlawful assembly, assault, wrongful restraint, and criminal intimidation.
A trial is going on in the assault case and ahead of Saxena’s cross-examination, his lawyers had filed an application seeking immunity before the metropolitan court.
Saxena’s lawyers argued before the court that he enjoys the status of the President’s nominee and that the immunity under Article 361 of the Constitution is available to LG.
After the metropolitan court turned down his plea on May 8, Saxena approached the Gujarat high court seeking to quash and set aside the order by the lower court.
Senior advocate Jal Unwala along with advocates Ajaykumar Choksi and Aditya Choksi, who argued on behalf of Saxena on Tuesday, said, “The order impugned replicates nil application of judicial consideration and zilch application of the constitutional provision. Therefore, the propriety of the order impugned is bad in law, perverse, vague and unsustainable.”
“The order impugned is unjust. The totality of submissions canvased to seek protection are not even recorded in the order. The order impugned is passed in a mechanical and casual manner without the application of judicial deliberation. The reasons assigned are not cogent in order to deny the protection, it lacks in appreciating the issue on hand with respect to interpretation of the constitutional provision,” the lawyers argued in their petition.
A copy of the Gujarat high court’s order is yet to be made available online.
