Shah didn't disclose liabilities, suspend his RS membership: Congress to EC
New Delhi, Aug 13 : The Congress on Monday met Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) O.P. Rawat and demanded that BJP President Amit Shah's membership of the upper House be suspended for not disclosing his liabilities in his election affidavit during the Rajya Sabha polls last year.
"Our delegation met the Election Commission (EC). Under Representation of People's Act, 2004, whoever contests an election, he has to disclose his assets and properties," said Congress leader Kapil Sibal who led a party delegation to the EC.
"If there is any liability, he should disclose that as well. Amit Shah mortgaged two of his properties through his son Jay Shah to a cooperative bank in Gujarat which got them a loan of Rs 25 crore. But he did not disclose this in the election affidavit. This is a liability," he added.
Sibal said: "We told the EC that this is a violation of the 2004 rule. Our representation should be sent to the Chairman, Rajya Sabha, so that action can be taken against Amit Shah."
"The EC said it had taken cognizance of it and will take a decision on it soon and also initiate appropriate action. We don't want to make it a political issue. We want the EC to act on it," he added.
The Congress delegation included Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Jairam Ramesh, Vivek Tankha and Pranav Jha.
In a memorandum to the EC, the party said: "Following the publication of recent news items in the public domain, it has come to light that Amit Shah, who was nominated to Rajya Sabha as a member of Parliament in 2017, has wilfully and deliberately concealed significant liabilities from his declaration."
"At the time of filing his nomination papers for the election to the Upper House, Amit Shah had already mortgaged two of his properties (in 2016) to Kalupur Commercial Cooperative Bank (one of Gujarat's largest Cooperative Banks) for his son Jay Shah's business venture Kusum Finserve LLP," it added.
It also said that Shah's properties were mortgaged in lieu of a large and substantial loan of Rs. 25 crore extended by the bank to his son's company.
"It is, therefore, a fact that the properties are mortgaged to Kalupur Commercial Cooperative Bank and hence constitute a liability that should have been declared."
The party further said: "It must also be pointed out that Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 defines the liability of the Surety (in this case Amit Shah) as co-extensive with the corporate person/ body taking the loan."
"The act of wilful non-disclosure by the MP in his affidavit amounts to the offence of 'filing of false affidavit' under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Such an offence is punishable by up to 6 months imprisonment, or with fine, or with both," said the memorandum.
The Congress demanded that the EC must take immediate note of this and initiate appropriate proceedings to suspend the membership of Amit Shah to the upper House with immediate effect.
"The EC should also initiate communication with the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha to start the procedure laid down under the relevant 2004 rules to determine what further penalties may be imposed for breach of privilege."
"Further, the EC must initiate proceedings against Amit Shah for the filing of a false affidavit, which attracts up to six months' imprisonment and/or a fine," it added.
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.
Unnao rape case: SC defers hearing on CBI's plea against suspension of Sengar's life term
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Monday deferred to the first week of May the hearing on a petition filed by the CBI challenging the suspension of life imprisonment of former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the 2017 Unnao rape case.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Sura Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said that the matter will be taken up after a nine-judge bench completes hearing on the Sabarimala review proceedings.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Sengar, raised the issue of non-hearing of the pleas in another case related to the alleged custodial death of the victim's father in the Delhi High Court and said that a 10-year jail term was handed down to Sengar in that case.
"Ten years is likely to be completed soon and yet no substantial hearing has taken place in the high court. I should get bail in this matter," he said.
It was alleged by him that even the victim's lawyer is taking adjournments in the high court.
Lawyer Mehmood Pracha, counsel for the victim, said that only one adjournment has been sought in the high court.
The CJI noted the consent of both sides that no adjournment will be sought in the Delhi High Court in another case involving Sengar as one of the accused.
"The lawyers will extend full cooperation (in the HC)," the CJI said.
On December 29, last year, the top court stayed the Delhi High Court order suspending the life sentence of expelled BJP leader Sengar in the 2017 Unnao rape case and said he shall not be released from custody.
The bench, hearing the CBI's plea challenging the high court order, said that substantial questions of law have arisen in the matter that require consideration.
The apex court had also issued notice to Sengar seeking his response on the CBI's plea.
The bench said it was conscious of the fact that ordinarily, when a convict or an undertrial was released on bail pursuant to an order passed by a trial court or the high court, such an order should not be stayed by it without hearing such a person.
It noted that Sengar was also convicted and sentenced in a separate case and was still in custody in that matter.
"In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we stay the operation of the impugned order dated December 23, 2025, passed by the high court. Consequently, the respondent (Sengar) shall not be released from custody pursuant to the said order," the bench had said.
The top court said various substantial questions of law have arisen for its consideration in the matter.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, urged the bench to stay the high court order, saying it was a "horrific rape" of a minor child.
The Delhi High Court had, in its December 23, 2025, order, said that Sengar has been convicted under Section 5 (C) (aggravated penetrative sexual assault by a public servant) of the POCSO Act but an elected representative does not fit the definition of a "public servant" under Section 21 of the IPC.
The high court had suspended the jail term of Sengar, who was serving life imprisonment in the Unnao rape case, till the pendency of his appeal, saying he had already served seven years and five months in prison.
The high court order has sparked criticism from a section and there have been protests by the victim, her family and activists.
Sengar had challenged a December 2019 trial court verdict in the case. He had, however, remained in jail since he was also serving 10 years' imprisonment in the custodial death case of the victim's father and has not been granted bail in that case.
The rape case and other connected cases were transferred to Delhi from a trial court in Uttar Pradesh on the directions of the Supreme Court on August 1, 2019.
Sengar's appeal against his conviction in the case of the custodial death of the survivor's father is also pending, where he has sought suspension of sentence on the ground that he has already spent a substantial time in jail.
In its plea filed in the apex court, the CBI referred to its verdict in the L K Advani case in which it held that anyone who holds public office, like MPs or MLAs, would be deemed a "public servant".
It contended that the high court erred by declaring that Sengar, an MLA when the offence was committed, was not a "public servant" to be prosecuted under POCSO and granted him bail.
