PIL instated for the removal of Swati Maliwal, Delhi HC cautioned lawyers concerning the petitions filed as PILs containing vested interests :-

While a public interest litigation was instated in dealing with the removal of Swati Maliwal from the post of chairperson, Delhi Commission for women (DCW), Delhi High court warned the lawyer functioning as a social worker to be more careful in future while filing the petitions as PILS.

Archana Sharma who is a lawyer by profession and social worker preferred the PIL to remove Maliwal. She was contended to have directed the Delhi Police to register a case of abetment to suicide against her in connection with the bois locker room, in which 17 year old boy was suspected to be a part of a chat group on social media had committed suicide earlier this month. In direction to this Archana event stated to set up an enquiry against Maliwal by the National Commission of Protection of Child Rights.

The Division Bench justices Hima Kohli and Subramonium Prasad, after considering the PIL, observed at the very start of the petition that it appeared to be a “vested interest litigation rather than a public interest litigation”.

Particularly when under the grab of referring the incident of ‘bois locker room’ on the social media the petitioner has questioned the qualifications of respondent no.4 for holding the subject post and has alleged that she has tried to commandeer the jurisdiction not vested in her by law.

The court even ruled the that the incident of the boys locker room had already been under investigation by the Delhi Police officials and had already been taken up by the court.

Observed that the present matter did not require any reference of the same issue in this petition handheld no good reason for its credibility.

Maliwal had been targeted earlier as well by the petitioner and this being the second attempt made by the party to target her.

The council of the Delhi government stated that it was yet another longer method to agitate her which is being adopted by the petitioners.

In lieu on the petition going sideways  the petitioner sought courts permission to withdraw her same petition. The courts while granting the permission to withdraw the petition cautioned her to be more careful while instating the petitions as PILs.

By Rajat Verma of MMDU

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *