COMMENTARY
INTERVIEWS
SPECIALS
CHAT
ARCHIVES

Chidambaram files case against Subramaniam Swamy

Finance Minister P Chidambaram today approached the Delhi high court seeking initiation of proceedings against Janata Party President Subramaniam Swamy for "fabricating" documents relating to a court case.

The high court issued show cause notice to Dr Subramaniam Swamy on the application of Chidambaram moved under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for initiating proceedings under Section 193 read with Section 199 of the Indian Penal Code for interpolating certain facts in the revision petition.

Justice A K Srivastava issued the notice and directed Swamy to reply to it within two days and adjourned the matter to January 9, when his criminal revision petition was also slated for hearing.

Swamy has been charged with introducing a new section and adding three pages in the copy of the complaint (which was dismissed by the trial court) attached to the criminal revision petition moved before the high court seeking prosecution of Chidambaram for allegedly acquiring promoters shares of a private firm in return to the 'favour' done to the company.

The finance minister also urged the the court to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the acts and conduct of Swamy in so far as they constitute offences under Sections 209, 463 and various other sections of the Indian Penal Code and take appropriate action.

The facts regarding the "fabrication" came to the fore when, during the last date of hearing, Justice Jaspal Singh, on perusing the original records of the special court, observed that there were material and serious differences between the complaint filed by Swamy before the special court and the copy of the complaint filed along with the revision petition before the high court.

While observing that the matter was "serious", the judge permitted the counsel for Chidambaram to inspect the original record of the special court before the next date of hearing on January 9.

The application said the judge had also expressed the view that Swamy should explain the material and serious differences between the original complaint and the purported copy filed before the high court.

Senior counsel Arun Jaitley, appearing for Chidambaram, said that on comparing the original complaint, it was found that there were material and serious interpolations in the copy filed along with the revision petitions.

The copy was a mala fide effort to change the case made out in the original complaint and it was manifestly clear that the original complaint has been improved in order to provide a basis for challenging the order of dismissal passed by the special judge, Jaitley said, and added that ''these interpolations cannot be said to have crept in inadvertently. They are not typographical mistakes. They are not innocent errors.''

He contended that the interpolated complaint was the product of an 'evil and nefarious design' to scandalise the reputation and cause harm and prejudice to Chidambaram.

It was manifestly a fraud perpetrated upon the high court and was an attempt to subvert the course of justice by fabricating a document as if it were a true record of the lower court, the counsel said, and added that it was a blatant attempt to interfere with the administration of justice and for all these reasons constituted gross contempt of the high court.

It was a part of the political vendetta carried on by Swamy on Chidambaram, he submitted.

He also challenged the averments made by Swamy that he had thought of amending the complaint and prepared an amended complaint but, by mistake, the amended complaint was not filed in the court of the special judge. Jaitley further said that Swamy had offered no explanation when the high court dictated the order after finding the faults in the two complaints.

''If there had been a genuine mistake, the complainant would have spontaneously responded by giving the explanation before the court,'' Jaitley added.

UNI