In addition to denying what it termed were “baseless allegations” of quid pro quo in relation to granting parole to incarcerated Indian National Lok Dal leader Om Prakash Chautala in return for relief to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) legislators facing criminal charges, the Delhi government on Friday said it was in the process of streamlining the procedure in such cases.
Arguing that Lieutenant-Governor Najeeb Jung had sought to misrepresent facts even in relation to the said procedure, which, the government said, had remained unchanged since the year 2008 and was being broached with a view to, unsuccessfully, “divert attention from the real issue of Chautala’s parole”.
“Compoundable cases against political leaders or activists are never withdrawn on executive orders, but through a screening committee. The constitution of such a screening committee consists only of members of the bureaucracy like such as the Principal Secretary, Home Department; Principal Secretary, Law Department; Joint Commissioner of Delhi Police (Law and Order Division) and the Director of Prosecution,” said a senior government official.
The official further argued that politicians, in principle, have “always remained far from being a part of the proceedings of the Committee” since these complaints were generally of a political nature and related to political dharnas , agitation, and defacement of property instead of being of a serious or heinous nature. “We are now in the process of further amending this procedure by the creation of a far more decentralised committee to assess such cases consisting of the District Magistrate, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, the Chief Prosecutor and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,” the official added.
Meanwhile, stating that the work done by the committee was continuous in nature, it had, according to instances recorded in official documents, had met 13 times in the last five years and processed 141 cases. “It is clear that no Minister is involved in this process which, at its core, only seeks to clear a backlog of as many as upwards of 4,000 such compoundable cases which, if withdrawn, would go a far way in reducing pendency at various city courts,” the official said, alleging that the L-G had “erred in making this incorrect allegation”.
Further, the government said in a statement that the committee in question was mandated “merely” to recommend compoundable cases fit for withdrawal with the final decision resting solely with the judiciary.
Compoundable cases against political leaders or activists are never withdrawn on executive orders, but through a screening committee comprising only members of the bureaucracy
Compoundable cases against political leaders or activists are never withdrawn on executive orders, but through a screening committee comprising only members of the bureaucracy
