“There is certain evidence which is essential… The Court must call for the Vigilance Report… even if it is in a sealed cover”.
Swamy further stated that he would like to make written submissions after evidence is recorded in the trial. He further defended his locus to file the application on the ground that it was his public interest litigation which facilitated the filing of chargesheet in the case.
“There was an attempt made to sabotage this Investigation… the government changed… and we are here now..”, he said.
He further urged the Court to overlook allegations of political vendetta and submitted,
“My application cannot be brushed aside on the allegations of political vendetta… The court will look at the material and not whether the person is a politician.”
Appearing for the accused, Shashi Tharoor, Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa argued in favour of the dismissal of Swamy’s application. It is preposterous and absurd to claim right to be in a trial just because you filed a PIL, he said.
“PILs don’t give one the right to be part of a trial.”, he said.
Pahwa argued that in terms of section 301, only the victim or his/her guardian has the right to participate in the trial.
“He presumes that he has the locus. He is neither associated with the prosecution, accused, nor the victim.”
“This is the second application. The first was filed under section 302.. the Prosecutor (had then) said I don’t need your assistance.”
Further Objecting to the application, Pahwa stated that the application was not supported by an affidavit which was contrary to the Delhi High Court Rules.
“What is the guarantee that the allegations are correct… There is No affidavit.”
Pahwa thus contended that all the allegations on the destruction of evidence were false.
Delhi Police also argued that Swamy’s application was not maintainable in law. Additional Public Prosecutor, Atul Srivastava contended that allowing Swamy’s plea would amount to further investigation. After the chargesheet is filed and cognizance has been taken, there can be no suo moto directions from court for further investigation, APP argued.
After hearing the parties, Judge Bhardwaj reserved its order in the plea.
The case was committed to Sessions Court for trial by ACMM Samar Vishal on February 4. Judge Vishal had then directed the Delhi Police to preserve its Vigilance Report on alleged tampering of evidence in the case.