SC rejects plea to probe Vadra, Reason: Won't allow 'cheap publicity'

[Spacescreamer]

"You choose one person. On what basis? We will not allow you to destroy the name of a person by using PIL," said justice Dattu.
Merely because they are related to politicians, you cannot call them sinners, the court told Sharma.

The Supreme Court on Monday said that public interest litigation route could not be taken to target and bring down the reputation of any one person and for gaining cheap publicity.

The apex court bench of justice HL Dattu and justice Ranjan Gogoi said this while dismissing as withdrawn a PIL by advocate ML Sharma who sought probe in the allocation of land to United Progressive Alliance (UPA) chairperson Sonia Gandhi's son-in-law Robert Vadra's Skylight Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. by the Haryana government.

Permitting Sharma to withdraw the PIL, justice Dattu said: "You have done a good job. Don't destroy it by your cheap publicity."

Source


Is this even possible? I mean i am not related to the field to be able to discern things in the correct perspective maybe, but the reasoning given to the petitioner.. Is that even valid ?

 

[vpraveenis]

I am guessing that there was not enough evidence provided by the petitioner to make it a challenging case. That might be why the judges were asking "on what basis?"

 

[puns]

He is a serial PIL filer in supreme court. He has done it against pvt Companies, state & central government.
Most of them are thrown out. He was also the lawyer for Delhi Rape case.
Go figure !

 

[letmein]

He is a serial PIL filer in supreme court. He has done it against pvt Companies, state & central government.
Most of them are thrown out. He was also the lawyer for Delhi Rape case.
Go figure !

He'll be on next years Bigg Boss

 

[MAGNeT]

PIl should have been filed on government employee helping someone rather than on VAdra.That way indirectly Vadra could have been caught.
But some cases like this and TAJ corridor where every one knows the politician or person known to make money SC throws case out sometimes make me doubt SC integrity too.

 

[sharktale1212]

Wasn't KJ Balakrishanan the CJ who tried to exempt the Office of the Chief Justice of India from the purview of the Right to Information Act? He cited privacy as one of the reasons. Makes you wonder what privacy does the CJ want specially in the face of such verdicts.

 

[blr_p]

I am guessing that there was not enough evidence provided by the petitioner to make it a challenging case. That might be why the judges were asking "on what basis?"

Read an article in the Hindu and it seems the case was rejected because it only mentioned one person. Had it mentioned others as well that were also involved then i think it would have passed. But what political purpose would that be to anybody.

So i think the SC got this one right ie abusing a PIL for cheap publicity and scapegoat just one person. They acknowledged that the petitioner did good work but this one was a cheap shot.

Election season comes and the attack dogs are out, and trying to get noticed.

The general outline is..

bjp = communal
congress = corrupt

Gameplan : Do anything and everything to make arguments in favour of either. Make it as black & white as possible. Get noticed by the media doing so. USE the media to do your propaganda.

....

*PROFIT*

 

[Sei]

*PROFIT*