Delhi High Court to hear the issue of the admissibility of IT records on July 11
With the ongoing investigation of money laundering charges against Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, and senior congressional leaders in connection with the National Herald case, the point of contention is whether the original complaint in the lawsuit filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy has stalled, whether certain documents, including income tax returns, may be allowed in the litigation before Dr. Swamy’s cross-examination is complete.
In its 11th year, the trial in the case has now been delayed for more than a year on a plea from Dr. Swamy, who approached the Delhi High Court last February to challenge the court’s decision not to allow these documents until his Crusade exam is completed. The Supreme Court adjourned the trial (which was in the evidence-for-charge stage) and will now hear the case over the documents on July 11. Since February 20, 2016, which was set as the first date to lead the prosecution in this case, the process has been slow.
Multiple petitions
Referring to multiple petitions filed by Dr. Swamy under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. PC) to introduce new documents into the case, the Additional Capital Magistrate Samar Vishal had noted in a May 2018 order: This “serves no purpose whatsoever, but delays the trial … the first date for bringing evidence for the prosecution was 20/02/2016 and so far the evidence has not started”.
This order also denied a request from Dr. Swamy to enter IT records related to Mr. Gandhi and Ms. Gandhi. It was thought that, as the complainant, he should first be investigated and investigated before additional documents could be requested. This led to the investigation of Dr. Swamy in the proceedings.
The rest of 2018 was spent examining himself by Dr. Swamy and arguing over a request from the accused to stop him from posting on Twitter about the case, which was ultimately rejected. In 2019, the cross-examination of Dr. Swamy on 12 dates, of which he was interrogated four times by the accused’s lawyers. On five occasions, at the request of Dr. Swamy postponed, because he was either at his party’s National Executive Assembly, out of town, or attending parliament. On two dates (April 27, 2019, and September 28, 2019), both parties requested a postponement, and on one date, this was postponed due to the absence of the chairman (the judge).
In the absence of documents
It was again postponed to February 1, 2020, for lack of two documents – one complaint filed with the income tax and another filed with the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs – related to the case. But before the cross-examination could resume, the COVID-19 pandemic struck, further delaying the proceedings. When the matter came to the next date of the cross-examination of Dr. Swamy, he applied Section 244 of the Cr.PC on December 5, 2020, to call witnesses who could prove the documents rejected by the court in May 2018. court. The court cited the 2018 order denying the request, prompting Dr. Swamy to approach the Delhi High Court requesting that all litigation proceedings be suspended until the issuance of these documents is decided.
In 2018, when Dr. Swamy attempted to enter the documents, including the IT records, the court ruled that the papers were photocopies and inadmissible. The court then also had Dr. Swamy reject that these should be admitted because they had been attacked by the accused in one of the special leave petitions they had filed with the Supreme Court, saying that it was irrelevant “when the documents themselves are inadmissible (the issue of relevance separately)…” However, some of these documents have already become part of the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) money laundering investigation in this case, with the agency securing them in May this year, according to court records.
