National Herald case: HC terms Gandhis’ applications as ‘infructuous’

The Congress leaders had alleged that a "different treatment" was meted out to a challenge filed by them in the case.

October 15, 2015 01:57 pm | Updated November 16, 2021 09:57 pm IST - New Delhi

Congress president Sonia Gandhi and vice-president Rahul Gandhi during the during a rally at Ramlila Maidan in New Delhi. File photo

Congress president Sonia Gandhi and vice-president Rahul Gandhi during the during a rally at Ramlila Maidan in New Delhi. File photo

The Delhi High Court on Thursday termed as “infructuous” the applications moved by Congress President Sonia Gandhi, her son Rahul and some other party leaders alleging a “different treatment” was meted out to a challenge filed by them in the National Herald case.

The Congress leaders in their application had opposed the transfer of the case from the court of Justice Sunil Gaur who had part-heard the matter for eight months to another court of Justice P S Teji.

Justice Gaur on Thursday termed their “applications” as infructuous as the matter has been listed before him by the high court registry.

The judge also said that he had not recused from the matter and added that the petitions came back to him as it was part-heard by him.

Even senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Sonia Gandhi, agreed with the court that the applications had become infructuous and also added that they can be withdrawn.

The court, thereafter, said it will hear arguments in the matter later in the afternoon.

The Gandhis in their application had said their petition challenging a trial court order in the case was transferred in violation of the procedures and practice being followed by the court.

The application also said that their challenge petition ought to have been listed before the bench of Justice Gaur before whom the matter was pending for over eight months and was heard by him at length on several occasions.

“The matter being actually part heard ought to have been listed before the bench of Justice Sunil Gaur before whom the matter was pending for over eight months and was heard by him at length on several occasions.

“Even as per the established procedure and practice of this court, the registry ought to have placed this matter before the very same Judge where the matter was part heard especially when the same has been clarified and appended to the Roster Modification Notice itself,” the application said.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.