Delhi high court reserves order on plea against Kesri

The Delhi high court has reserved orders on the maintainability of a public interest petition, alleging amassing of illegal wealth and bribing of legislators by Congress president Sitaram Kesri.

A division bench consisting of Chief Justice M J Rao and Justice Manmohan Sarin also reserved orders on the issue of the court's role in dealing with such petitions.

The bench heard for nearly three hours Additional Solicitor General K N Bhatt and Kesri's counsel G L Sanghi opposing the petition and petitioner Madhuresh's counsel Prashant Bhushan advocating the court to exercise its jurisdiction in ''public interest.''

Opposing the petition, Bhatt said that in such cases, the court had only to ensure that the investigating agency, in this case the CBI, was performing its statutory duty according to law and there was no need to keep the matter pending.

The CBI has till date filed three status reports in the high court regarding Madhuresh's complaint and the court had seen for itself that the investigating agency was on the job.

The court's role in such petitions was to activate the investigating agencies to do their job and not to supervise the investigations, he added.

Madhuresh filed his petition on November 5 after not receiving any response from the agency about the fate of his complaint regarding Kesri, given to the agency on October 7.

The petitioner's counsel told the court that he apprehended the CBI would not investigate the case because of the ''current political equations'' and had prayed for the judges to monitor the probe.

However, the counsel for the CBI and Kesri opposed the petition and contended that it was not even maintainable in the first place. "How can the petitioner rush to the court within a month of filing a complaint with the CBI, without giving the agency much time to conduct inquiries?" the additional solicitor general said.

Kesri's counsel contended that the petition was ''politically motivated'' and was filed within a few days of his client taking over as the Congress president.

The court proceedings were being abused to publicise the allegations against Kesri in a bid to damage his reputation and the credibility of the Congress, which he was leading both as its president and as parliamentary party leader.

Urging the court to dismiss the petition, Sanghi contended that the CBI had questioned Kesri several times on the minutest of details and had found nothing.

''Leave alone several properties in Delhi, Bihar and elsewhere, I have no hesitation in stating that Mr Kesri has never in his life bought an inch of land anywhere,'' his counsel added.

Bhushan, appearing for Madhuresh, a freelance journalist from Bihar, however, contended that the petitioner had raised a matter of public importance and the court's continued supervision of the CBI investigations was vital.

Justifying the petitioner's moving the high court within a month of filing the complaint with the CBI, Bhushan said he had repeatedly made queries with the agency regarding his complaint, but there was no response from the other side.

As Kesri headed the Congress party, on which the present government depends for support, the petitioner apprehended that the CBI would not investigate the allegations made by him despite his stating these in an affidavit.

The fact that the CBI started a preliminary inquiry only after receiving a notice from the high court to submit a status report on the complaint showed that the petitioner's apprehensions were correct, he added.

On the court's role in such cases, Bhushan said if the status reports filed by the CBI revealed that the investigation was being conducted in an ''honest, thorough and expeditious'' manner, the court could dispose of the petition at this stage itself.

However, if the court had reason to suspect that the investigation was not being conducted properly, it should continue to retain jurisdiction of the matter and see that the CBI performs its statutory duty in accordance with the law.

On his nine-page petition filed in the high court, Madhuresh had alleged that he had personally witnessed Kesri 'bribing' legislators to vote for his Rajya Sabha membership in 1988 and 1994. He had also seen Kesri receiving huge sums of money from businessmen, the petitioner claimed.

He further submitted a list of assets and properties allegedly acquired by Kesri and members of his family, which were disproportionate to their known sources of income.