Today(20th Sept), The Delhi High Court dismissed Swati Maliwal’s petition against charges of illegal appointments made during her tenure as chairperson of the Delhi Commission for Women. The ruling upheld allegations of criminal misconduct under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(20th Sept), The Delhi High Court has dismissed Rajya Sabha member Swati Maliwal’s petition challenging the charges framed against her by a trial court. The case revolves around alleged illegal appointments made during her tenure as chairperson of the Delhi Commission for Women (DCW).
Justice Amit Mahajan delivered the ruling today(20th Sept), refusing to quash the trial court’s decision passed on December 8, 2022. This ruling had framed charges against Maliwal and three other individuals under provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The charges include allegations of criminal misconduct by public officials. The case stems from accusations that during her time leading the DCW, Maliwal illegally appointed individuals associated with the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), violating due process and recruitment protocols.
The charges against Maliwal and the other accused stem from a 2016 complaint filed by Barkha Shukla Singh, a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and former DCW chairperson. Singh’s complaint was lodged with the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) in Delhi, accusing Maliwal of abusing her official position by appointing individuals with connections to the AAP, bypassing the established rules and without advertising the vacancies publicly.
The investigation, as conducted by the ACB, allegedly revealed serious discrepancies in the appointment process. According to reports, against the 26 sanctioned posts, a total of 87 individuals were appointed between 2015 and 2016. Among these appointees, it is claimed that at least 20 had direct links to the AAP. These appointments were allegedly made without adhering to standard recruitment practices and were seen as politically motivated.
ALSO READ: [Swati Maliwal Assault Case] Bibhav Kumar Seeks Regular Bail from Delhi HC
In the 2022 ruling by the Rouse Avenue Court, Special Judge (PC Act) highlighted the presence of “strong suspicion” against Swati Maliwal and her co-accused in relation to the alleged illegal appointments.
In the court’s observation:
“In most cases, direct evidence of conspiracy is often absent and must be inferred from the circumstances. In this instance, the circumstances strongly suggest a prima facie conspiracy among the accused.”
The court further added:
“Although the charge sheet does not explicitly state allegations of conspiracy against the accused, Section 120B of the IPC has been invoked, and the facts suggest the existence of such a conspiracy.”
The trial court framed charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B of the IPC (criminal conspiracy), solidifying the basis of the case against Maliwal and the others involved.
The prosecution contends that Maliwal, in conspiracy with others, abused her authority by appointing individuals to the DCW without following established protocols. These appointments were allegedly made in violation of the General Financial Rules (GFR) and other recruitment guidelines.
According to the prosecution, the accused individuals benefited financially by securing these posts for AAP-affiliated workers. The remuneration, salary, and honorarium provided to these individuals were alleged to be unjustified and illegal.
The official records from the prosecution indicate that during the period between August 6, 2015, and August 1, 2016, a total of 90 appointments were made in the DCW. Out of these, 71 individuals were reportedly hired on a contractual basis, while 16 were employed for the ‘Dial 181’ distress helpline service. However, the prosecution has pointed out that no record exists for three additional appointees, raising further concerns about the transparency of the process.
Swati Maliwal has consistently denied the charges, asserting that the appointments were made in the best interest of the Commission’s functioning. She has maintained that no rules were deliberately broken and that the allegations are politically motivated, given her association with the AAP and its stance on women’s rights issues.
Maliwal’s legal defense is being led by Senior Advocate Rebecca John, along with a team of prominent lawyers including Chirag Madan, Harsh Bora, Ravleen Sabharwal, Rahul Agarwal, Pravir Singh, Nilanjan Dey, Tushar Yadav, Zillur Rehman, and Anshuka Baruah.
On the other side, the Special Counsel representing the state, Yoginder Handoo, was joined by Advocates Ashwin Kataria, Garvit Solanki, Medha Gaur, and Additional Standing Counsel Rupali Bandhopadhya, with Advocate Abhijeet Kumar.
