Excise policy case: Delhi HC CJ refuses to transfer CBI plea against discharge of Kejriwal, others
New Delhi (PTI): The Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, D K Upadhyaya, has declined a request by former chief minister and AAP convenor Arvind Kejriwal and others to transfer CBI's plea against their discharge in the excise policy case from Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to another judge.
According to sources privy to the development, Justice Upadhyaya opined that Justice Sharma was hearing CBI's petition against the trial court's decision in accordance with the roster, and there was no reason to pass an order of transfer on the administrative side.
A call for recusal has to be taken by the judge concerned, the chief justice clarified.
The CBI's petition is listed for hearing before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Monday.
On March 11, Kejriwal, AAP leader Manish Sisodia, along with other accused in the excise policy case, made a representation to Chief Justice Upadhyaya to transfer CBI's plea against their discharge from Justice Sharma to another "impartial" judge.
In the representation, Kejriwal claimed he has a "grave, bona fide, and reasonable apprehension" that the hearing in the matter would not be impartial and neutral.
On February 27, the trial court discharged Kejriwal, Sisodia and 21 others and pulled up the CBI, saying its case was wholly unable to survive judicial scrutiny and stood discredited in its entirety.
On March 9, Justice Sharma's bench stayed the trial court's recommendation on the initiation of departmental action against the CBI's investigating officer in the liquor policy case.
Issuing notice to all 23 accused on CBI's plea against their discharge, Justice Sharma said certain observations and findings of the trial court at the stage of framing of charges prima facie appeared erroneous and needed consideration.
Kejriwal claimed in the representation that his apprehension was based on Justice Sharma's past conduct and said that on the very first day of the CBI's revision petition against his discharge, she proceeded to record a prima facie view that the trial court's detailed order was "erroneous", even without hearing the other side.
Justice Sharma, Kejriwal's representation contended, did not disclose any "specific perversity" when she stayed the trial court's directions against the CBI official.
He also objected to Justice Sharma's direction on deferring the trial proceedings in the connected ED case.
He submitted that Justice Sharma has decided multiple cases arising from the CBI FIR, including Kejriwal's petition against his arrest and bail applications by AAP leaders Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh as well as Telangana Jagruti president K Kavitha, and "not even once" given relief to any of the accused.
The representation added that Justice Sharma, while dealing with these earlier pleas, has already recorded "elaborate prima facie observations accepting the prosecution theory on critical questions".
It informed the chief justice that three of the judgements have been set aside by the Supreme Court and one has been referred to a larger bench.
In the representation, Kejriwal said the case against him was politically motivated and his request to transfer the pending matter to another judge was "not directed at any personal predilection, but at the objective test of reasonable apprehension in the mind of a fair-minded and informed litigant seeking justice".
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Bhojshala case: Disputed structure built from remains of pre-existing temples, claims ASI
Indore (PTI): The ASI has told the Madhya Pradesh High Court that a massive structure dating back to the Paramara kings' rule existed at the disputed Bhojshala temple-Kamal Maula mosque complex, and the current structure was built from the remains of temples.
The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) made the claim on Tuesday based on its 98-day scientific survey and over 2,000-page report.
The Hindu community considers Bhojshala a temple dedicated to Vagdevi (Goddess Saraswati), while the Muslim side claims the monument as the Kamal Maula Mosque. The disputed complex is protected by the ASI.
During the hearing before Justices Vijay Kumar Shukla and Alok Awasthi of the HC's Indore bench, Additional Solicitor General Sunil Kumar Jain, representing the ASI, presented a detailed account of the scientific survey conducted two years ago at the complex.
Referring to the ASI's survey report, he said, "Retrieved architectural remains, sculptural fragments, large slabs of inscriptions with literary texts, Nagakarnika inscriptions on pillars, etc, suggest that a large structure associated with literary and educational activities existed at the site. Based on scientific investigations and archaeological remains recovered during the investigations, this pre-existing structure can be dated to the Paramara period."
It can be said that the existing structure was made from the parts of earlier temples, based on scientific investigations, survey and archaeological excavations conducted, study and analysis of retrieved finds, study of architectural remains, sculptures, and inscriptions, art and sculptures, Jain said quoting the report.
Summarising the report, he also drew the court's attention to the fact that the archaeological study identifies that many architectural components, such as pillars and beams, were originally part of temple structures before being repurposed for a mosque.
"The evidence of this transition includes Sanskrit and Prakrit inscriptions that were damaged or hidden, alongside sculptures of deities and animals that were often mutilated or defaced," Jain contended.
The report also states that "all Sanskrit and Prakrit inscriptions are older than the Arabic and Persian inscriptions, indicating that users or engravers of the Sanskrit and Prakrit inscriptions occupied the place earlier".
In light of the Muslim side's earlier objections, the bench wanted to know why there were some discrepancies in the ASI's responses regarding the status of the disputed complex in the cases filed over the years.
The Additional Solicitor General argued that earlier studies of the complex involved only officials, while the current survey involved scientists and the use of advanced technologies such as Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR).
The hearing in the Bhojshala case will continue on Wednesday.
The high court has been regularly hearing four petitions and one writ appeal regarding the religious nature of the Bhojshala temple-Kamal Maula mosque complex since April 6.
