Delhi High Court stays proceedings against DCW head Swati Maliwal in illegal appointments case

The Delhi High Court on Friday stayed proceedings against Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) Chairperson Swati Maliwal in a case related to alleged illegal appointments of her acquaintances, including Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders, to the DCW. (Swati Maliwal v. State).Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said that the essential ingredient of an offence under Section 13(1)(d)ii of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not made out in the chargesheet or the order framing charges in the case."This Court is persuaded to notice that the essential ingredient of offence under 13(1)(d)(ii) PC Act, is evidently missing from chargesheet and order on charges; which accordingly requires closer consideration. In view of the above, further proceedings are stayed till next date of hearing before this Court. List on July 26, 2023."The said provision makes it an offence for a person to abuse their position as a public servant, to obtains for themselves or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage..The respondents were issued notice in the matter, and given six weeks time to file a status report, with any replies to the same to be filed within four weeks thereafter..Senior Advocate Rebecca John, appearing for Maliwal before the High Court, said that the people appointed to the DCW included lawyers with experience in monitoring rape trials. Further, the appointments were on a short-term contractual basis, and it was not the prosecution's case that the appointees had not worked and only collected salaries.It was pointed out that the complainant was a former Chairperson of the DCW, who belonged to a different party.John stated that the allegations of the DCW's budget being sanctioned in one go as against installments had not been pressed in the chargesheet. Further, the number of alleged illegal appointments in the same had been brought down from 87 to 20.Pertinently, it was argued that the respondents had not seized the AAP's membership register as part of its probe. The prosecution had only relied on hearsay evidence based on the cross-examination of a constable to show alleged association of the appointees with the party, it was stressed..Maliwal had challenged a Rouse Avenue Court ruling of December 8, 2022, that had framed corruption charges against her and three others. In his order, Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh had noted that there was a 'strong suspicion' against Maliwal, Promila Gupta, Sarika Chaudhary and Farheen Malick, and that the facts disclosed 'prima facie sufficient material'. The court had framed charges of criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code, and criminal misconduct by a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA). "...being an autonomous body receiving funds from the Government neither posts could have been created at whims & fancies nor recruitment of near and dear ones could have been made against all Rules. Promoting the interest of near & dear ones and nepotism, as revealed from the facts of this case, is also a form of corruption," the order had stated. .The initial complaint against Maliwal and others was filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and former DCW Chairperson Barkha Shukla Singh with the Anti Corruption Branch (ACB). The prosecution alleged that all the four accused persons, in conspiracy with each other, abused their official positions and obtained pecuniary advantages for AAP workers and acquaintances. It was claimed that such workers and acquaintances were appointed to different posts of DCW without following the due process. It was argued that a total of 90 appointments were made in the DCW between August 6, 2015 and August 1, 2016, out of which 71 persons were appointed on a contractual basis and 16 persons were appointed for 'Dial 181'. However, no record pertaining to the appointment of the remaining 3 appointees could be found. .Standing Counsel Sanjay Lau appeared for the respondents before the High Court..Read our detailed story on the trial court's order here.[Follow our live-coverage of today's hearing]