Delhi HC dismisses petition seeking PM's prosecution

The Delhi high court has dismissed a public interest petition seeking the prosecution of Prime Minister H D Deve Gowda and some others for alleged FERA violations on the ground that the petitioner has no personal knowledge of the facts and intends to use the court as a "tool" to extract facts.

In a six-page order pronounced on Friday, January 31, a division bench comprising Justice Devinder Gupta and Justice K S Gupta noted that the entire edifice of the petition regarding alleged FERA violations by the prime minister and his family which accompanied him on official trips to Harare and Rome last year, was based on press reports.

Moreover, petitioner Madhuresh, a freelance journalist, had not signed the petition himself. It was signed only by his counsel.

The petitioner has only signed an affidavit stating that the petition is based upon facts gathered from various sources including a large number of press report and "believed by me to be true".

Stating that the petitioner did not disclose the sources that he had relied on, the bench noted that he had prayed to the court to issue notice to the respondents calling upon them to place on record true facts, implying thereby that the petitioner himself was not sure of the facts and expected the court to get for him the true facts which he could then use to draw an inference regarding violation of law by the respondents.

The bench noted that if some directions are issued in this case, relying upon allegations made in the petition, and these are found to be incorrect, then immense damage would be caused to the respondents' reputation.

However, the petitioner would be able to escape responsibility contending that his affidavit stated that the petition was based on press reports which he believed to be true.

In light of these observations, the bench concluded that it was not inclined to entertain the petition or issue notice and it was thereby dismissed.

As regards the Supreme Court judgment cited by senior counsel Shanti Bhushan, who appeared for Madhuresh, on the courts' power to monitor the working of the various state functionaries, the bench noted that this was not applicable in the case.

Madhuresh had moved the high court under Article 226, seeking prosecution of Deve Gowda, his family and the Indian high commissioners in Harare and Rome for alleged FERA violations in the expenditure incurred on a huge personal entourage which accompanied the prime minister on his foreign trips last year.

The petitioner contended that the government had incurred expenses estimated at least Rs 3.5 million in the travel, lodging and entertainment of about 15 of Deve Gowda's family.

According to the facts known to the petitioner, none of the prime minister's kin had obtained any foreign exchange from the RBI or any authorised dealer prior to the trip.

Stating that the entire expenses had been borne by the Indian high commissions, and these had not been repaid, the petitioner also sought the court's directions to the government to recover the public money allegedly spent on the travel and entertainment of the prime minister's family.

UNI