AHMEDABAD: The Gujarat high court on Friday reserved its verdict after hearing Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal’s review petition against the HC order fining him Rs 25,000, with regard to Gujarat University‘s plea against the chief information commissioner’s order to furnish PM Narendra Modi’s degree under the Right to Information Act (RTI) provisions.
Kejriwal’s counsel, Percy Kavina, requested withdrawal of the order by asserting that GU had not posted Modi’s degree on its website.
For GU, solicitor general Tushar Mehta demanded the dismissal of Kejriwal’s plea, saying, “This review petition is an attempt to keep that controversy alive for no reason. This is to keep the pot boiling on a non-issue.”
Kejriwal’s lawyer submitted that litigants do not invite the court’s wrath for far worse actions. “This is based upon a completely erroneous apprehension of what the fact is,” he argued.
In response, the solicitor general requested the court to impose a greater penalty on Kejriwal for seeking a review of the court order.
Hinting at the spiralling effects of legal and political action in the form of GU’s defamation case against Kejriwal, the SG said, “It may have a domino effect. If you start here, there would be some effect and it may continue even after the court order. One has to be careful. If one is in public life, one has to be very very responsible. What a common man can talk on the street, you cannot talk in the temple of democracy.”
After hearing the arguments, Justice Biren Vaishnav reserved his order on Kejriwal’s review petition. Both parties – Kejriwal and GU – have been told to complete their written submissions within a week.
On March 31, the HC had allowed GU’s plea against the CIC’s order to GU to furnish Modi’s MA degree, following Kejriwal’s letter. The HC criticized the CIC for passing such an order without receiving a formal application.
Meanwhile, Kejriwal and Aam Aadmi Party Rajya Sabha member Sanjay Singh on Friday requested the HC’s registry to put up their applications challenging the metropolitan court’s summons based on GU’s criminal defamation plaint.
The HC once again refused to accord them priority hearings and the politicians requested a hearing on October 6, citing the Supreme Court’s express directions for quick hearings in cases involving MPs/MLAs.
Kejriwal’s counsel, Percy Kavina, requested withdrawal of the order by asserting that GU had not posted Modi’s degree on its website.
For GU, solicitor general Tushar Mehta demanded the dismissal of Kejriwal’s plea, saying, “This review petition is an attempt to keep that controversy alive for no reason. This is to keep the pot boiling on a non-issue.”
Kejriwal’s lawyer submitted that litigants do not invite the court’s wrath for far worse actions. “This is based upon a completely erroneous apprehension of what the fact is,” he argued.
In response, the solicitor general requested the court to impose a greater penalty on Kejriwal for seeking a review of the court order.
Hinting at the spiralling effects of legal and political action in the form of GU’s defamation case against Kejriwal, the SG said, “It may have a domino effect. If you start here, there would be some effect and it may continue even after the court order. One has to be careful. If one is in public life, one has to be very very responsible. What a common man can talk on the street, you cannot talk in the temple of democracy.”
After hearing the arguments, Justice Biren Vaishnav reserved his order on Kejriwal’s review petition. Both parties – Kejriwal and GU – have been told to complete their written submissions within a week.
On March 31, the HC had allowed GU’s plea against the CIC’s order to GU to furnish Modi’s MA degree, following Kejriwal’s letter. The HC criticized the CIC for passing such an order without receiving a formal application.
Meanwhile, Kejriwal and Aam Aadmi Party Rajya Sabha member Sanjay Singh on Friday requested the HC’s registry to put up their applications challenging the metropolitan court’s summons based on GU’s criminal defamation plaint.
The HC once again refused to accord them priority hearings and the politicians requested a hearing on October 6, citing the Supreme Court’s express directions for quick hearings in cases involving MPs/MLAs.
About The Author
