Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday said that it will hear arguments on October 19 on the maintainability of a plea challenging a trial court order that dismissed a petition which alleged Union minister Smriti Irani had misrepresented her educational qualifications before the Election Commission.

During the hearing, Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) Manoj Pant apprised the court that the petitioner had directly approached the High Court without going to the Sessions Court.

On the contrary, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Sessions Court and the High Court have concurrent jurisdiction, and thus, the present revision petition is maintainable.

Taking note of the submissions, the bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued notice to the State and posted the matter for ‘arguments on maintainability’ on October 19.

“Issue notice to State/respondent no. 1. Manoj Pant, additional public prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of State. List for arguments on maintainability on October 19”, the court said.

The single-judge bench was hearing a plea of freelance writer Ahmer Khan challenging the trial court’s decision of October 18, 2016 whereby his complaint was dismissed on the ground that it was filed to “needlessly harass" Irani as she was a Union minister.

The High Court in 2017 summoned the judicial records of the case in which the trial court had dismissed the plea against Union Women and Child Development Minister Smriti Irani. While declining to summon her as an accused, the trial court judge had said that there was a “great delay of around 11 years” in filing the complaint.

The petitioner has stated that the trial court order was bad in law and it needed to be "set aside".

Khan alleged that Irani had deliberately given discrepant information about her educational qualifications in affidavits filed before the Election Commission in 2004, 2011 and 2014 and did not give any clarification despite the concerns raised.

Khan had urged a trial court to take cognisance of the offences alleged in the plea under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act (RPA).

Section 125A of the Representation of People's Act (RPA) deals with penalties for filing a false affidavit and entails a jail term of up to six months or a fine or both, the plea stated. 

“For that the Ld. Magistrate has literally conferred a degree to the respondent accused by holding that the it is clear from CW4/B that she has passed subsidiary papers chosen vide CW4/A and hence no false information was given qua her educational qualification is completely illegal, without authority and untenable", the plea also stated. 

The plea further stated, "The Ld. Magistrate holds that there is no rule to stop a person from claiming to have passed the examination of 1st year of Bachelor even if she has not completed the full course". 

Case title: Ahmer Khan v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.