Delhi HC removes PIL petitioner against CM

R Sedhuraman

Legal Correspondent

New Delhi, January 29

The Delhi High Court today removed the PIL petitioner in a corruption case against Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister Virbhadra Singh, expressing doubts over the involvement of public interest in the litigation.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice RS Endlaw said it was appointing an amicus curiae to assist it and suggest the future course of action in the PIL. “The amicus will decide whether it is a PIL and then we will go into other aspects if necessary,” the Bench said.

The HC said it would pass a detailed order on March 26 giving reasons for discharging the PIL petitioner, NGO Common Cause.

The petitioner had pleaded for a probe by the CBI and the Income-Tax Department into the allegations against Singh.

The allegations included money laundering, corruption and possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income.

At today’s hearing, the HC asked the CBI if it was interested in pursuing the case to which the agency’s counsel said his client could do that only on the orders of the government or any constitutional court.

Appearing for Singh, senior advocate Kapil Sibal pleaded that the case was the result of “personal and political” interest, not of public interest.

He also objected to the Delhi HC entertaining the petition without any jurisdiction as the alleged illegal wealth was in Himachal Pradesh.

The Income Tax Department, however, disputed the objection, contending that some of the properties in question were in Delhi and as such the HC did have jurisdiction.

The Bench asked senior advocate Arvind Nigam as to how the NGO had chosen to file a PIL against Singh though it was receiving complaints of corruption against several persons.

Nigam said the governing council of the Common Cause had taken the decision to file the case.

Sibal, however, said the complaint in the case had initially been filed by advocate Prashant Bhushan in 2012 as the state government was investigating possible irregularities in the allotment of 4.68 hectare land to Kumud Bhushan Education Society in Kangra.

The society was run by Bhushan, who was also a political rival being a leader of the Aam Aadmi Party, he said. Sibal pointed out that the case was filed on the basis of some diary entries showing alleged payments of bribe to various individuals, including “VBS.”

Bhushan and the NGO had chosen to drag only Virbhadra into litigation by alleging that VBS meant Virbhadra Singh and ignoring other diary entries as there was no grouse against them, the senior advocate said.

The PIL petitioner contended that “this is a case where corruption is in black and white containing the signature” of Singh.

At this, the Bench said: “It appears so. No doubt about that. But why do you pick and choose? Why are you not answering it? You must have been receiving hundreds of complaints, but you don’t act in all cases.”

According to the petitioner, CBI had been conducting a preliminary inquiry for about two years without registering an FIR despite the overwhelming evidence.

The PIL has cited the revised income-tax returns filed by Singh for assessment years 2009-12, raising his agriculture income from just Rs 47 lakh to Rs 6.5 crore and the LIC policies purchased by an individual for Rs 5 crore in the names of Singh, his wife and children.

The petition also contended that an income-tax raid on a multinational steel company in November-December 2010 had shown that cash payments of Rs 2.8 crore had been made to “VBS” during 2008-10 when Singh was the Union Steel Minister.

All these details were in public domain for a long time, but neither the government nor any of its investigating agencies had bothered to initiate action even after they were formally requested to do so by the petitioner, it was pleaded.