Delhi HC to wait for SC in Swatanter Kumar defamation case; Chandhiok unhappy with media coverage

The Delhi high court hearing former Supreme Court judge Swatanter Kumar’s defamation case, would wait until the Supreme Court had decided on the transfer petition by an former law student intern who alleged she was sexually harassed by him.

Justice Manmohan Singh, who is hearing the Rs 5 crore defamation case launched by Kumar against the intern, was given a copy of the transfer petition and adjourned the case to 22 May, reported the PTI today.

The intern had filed a petition with the Supreme Court to transfer the case to Bangalore City Civil Court because she perceived to have “absolutely no chance of equal or near equal legal representation in Delhi and hence a fair trial will be jeopardized”, Legally India and one of the defendants in the defamation case, the Indian Express, had reported yesterday.

Senior counsel AS Chandhiok, who is one of the more than 20 lawyers including at least seven senior advocates who are appearing for Kumar, objected to the Express having published an article containing extensive details of the contents of the transfer petition filed by the intern’s advocates Vrinda Grover and Anindita Pujari. His submission resulted in a “heated” exchange with Grover, according to PTI and Bar & Bench, which reported today that Chandhiok had also complained about the full petition having been uploaded on websites - presumably Legally India and Bar & Bench, which both published the full transfer petition yesterday.

Comments

JRD 17 May 2014, 11:02
+0 -0
To my mind one of the greatest problems that we have with the justice system is lack of transparency. Could Senior Counsel A S Chandiok give us the reasons why he does not want the entire petition to be uploaded. To my mind uploading the entire petition is far more beneficial than merely a summary because then law students and others interested in law will get a much greater appreciation of how the legal system works in India
crux 25 May 2014, 08:47
+0 -0
Just think of two matters:
1. Why would the petitioner want a tight lid on proceedings?

At the same time,

2. What harm does the petitioner foresee in running the case in Bangalore (where there will be less presence of Delhi media)? Unless the petitioner expects Bangalore courts to behave differently from Delhi, I see no ground.