Saturday, February 28


New Delhi: Last year, Delhi’s law minister Kapil Mishra suffered a legal setback as his challenge to a summons by a magistrate for alleged online hate speech was tossed out.What came as a surprise, however, was the strongly worded order that followed, in which the judge slammed Mishra’s posts as ones that “appear to be a brazen attempt to promote enmity on the grounds of religion”.Special MP/MLA court judge Jitendra Singh highlighted that the use of the word ‘Pakistan’ was “very skilfully woven by (Mishra) in his alleged statements to spew hatred, careless to communal polarisation that may ensue in the election campaign, only to garner votes.” Singh’s no-holds-barred approach was on full display again on Friday as he took apart the CBI’s liquor policy case and discharged all 23 accused. Currently manning the sensitive roster of the MP/MLA court as special judge at the Rouse Avenue court complex, Singh is a senior judicial officer of Delhi Higher Judicial Service. He was appointed as an additional sessions judge in Oct 2024 and has since handled complex matters.On Nov 14, 2024, Singh ordered the release of AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan in a money-laundering case connected to alleged irregularities in the recruitment process of Delhi Waqf Board during his chairmanship.The judge refused to take cognisance of ED’s supplementary chargesheet against Khan under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) for lack of requisite sanction under section 197(1).Again, in Aug last year, the judge dismissed a defamation case filed by AAP functionary and former minister Satyendar Jain against BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj, noting that she merely echoed ED’s statement in a case against Jain. Though he ended he defamation case, the judge flagged the conduct of investigative agencies, ED in particular, noting that any dissemination of information by them must be “accurate, non-misleading, and free from sensationalism”.In the excise policy case, Singh held that the prosecution failed to establish even a prima facie case against the accused, citing a lack of concrete evidence and reliance on conjectures.



Source link

Share.
Leave A Reply

Exit mobile version