New Delhi: Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s aide, Bibhav Kumar, got an earful from the Supreme Court Thursday for his alleged misbehaviour against MP Swati Maliwal at the CM’s official residence in May.
The top court bench was furious at the defence’s plea that Maliwal, a Rajya Sabha MP from Kejriwal’s Aam Aadmi Party, visited the chief minister’s home without an appointment and that Kumar was only following protocol.
Slamming Kumar for behaving as if a “goon” had entered Kejriwal’s house, the three-judge bench led by Justice Surya Kant observed: “Is this the way, is it a private residence? It is the chief minister’s residence… you have assaulted a young woman.”
The remarks were made orally during the hearing on Kumar’s bail plea before the bench finally agreed to issue notice on his appeal to the Delhi Police. Kumar had knocked on the top court’s doors after the Delhi High Court dismissed his bail plea on 12 July.
Both the trial court and high court had declined to release Kumar on bail in view of the influential post he held in Kejriwal’s office. The two courts said the possibility of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses could not be ruled out.
In her complaint based on which the FIR was lodged, Maliwal alleged that Kumar had assaulted her when she went to meet Kejriwal at his residence on 13 May. She further said that Kumar had slapped her seven to eight times while she screamed. When Maliwal pushed him away, Kumar pounced and dragged her and then pulled up her shirt, she alleged.
Kumar’s lawyer, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, argued that contradictions in Maliwal’s statement about where she was hit raised doubt about the veracity of her allegations and, therefore, his client was entitled to bail. He complained that Maliwal had submitted her formal complaint on 16 May, three days after the alleged incident.
The bench, also comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Ujwal Bhuyan, countered Singhvi by reminding him that Maliwal had called 112 (emergency response system). “This belies your claim that she concocted (the case),” Justice Kant told Singhvi.
The judge appeared more vexed when Singhvi argued that Maliwal had gone to Kejriwal’s home that day without an appointment. He asked the senior counsel: “Is the CM’s house a private residence? Does it need this kind of a rule? We are shocked, this is not about minor or major injuries. The HC has rightfully reproduced everything.”
Justice Kant was referring to Maliwal’s physical situation at the time of the incident. According to her claim, she was on her period and despite being told about it, Kumar continued to punch her in her stomach.
“We normally grant bail. But we look at the way the alleged incident took place. We do not want to read (the FIR contents) in the open court,” Justice Kant said. The judge interjected again when Singhvi argued that his client could not influence anyone.
“You are right, we grant bail to murderers and killers. But here, look at the FIR. She is crying because of her physical condition. Did you have the authority? If this is a person who cannot influence witnesses, then who can? Was anyone there in the drawing room to speak against him, you think? He doesn’t seem ashamed, we think,” the judge said.
Singhvi, however, told the bench that while they were treating the FIR as the “gospel truth”, it was filed by “friendly police on a friendly L-G’s intervention”. “The police did not register my complaint, but hers,” Singhvi argued.
Refusing to get drawn into the “politics”, and asserting that it would strictly go by criminal process and the FIR, the top court issued notice and listed the matter for further hearing on 7 August.
(Edited by Tikli Basu)
Also read: ‘Destroying evidence’, More charges against Kejriwal aide in MP Swati Maliwal assault case