"Allegations Are Serious & Revolve Around Alleged Nepotism": Delhi HC Dismisses Swati Maliwal’s Plea Challenging Corruption Charges In DCW Appointment Case

The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed a petition filed by Rajya Sabha member Swati Maliwal challenging the charges framed against her by a trial court in a case related to alleged illegal appointments made during her tenure as the chairperson of the Delhi Commission for Women (DCW). 

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan upheld the trial court's order from December 8, 2022, which had framed charges against Maliwal and three others under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The case was registered in 2016 based on a complaint filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and former DCW chairperson Barkha Shukla Singh with the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) of Delhi. It was alleged that Maliwal and her co-accused had appointed several individuals associated with the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) to the DCW in violation of established procedures and without advertising the vacancies.

The investigation reportedly revealed that between 2015 and 2016, 87 individuals were appointed to the DCW despite there being only 26 sanctioned posts. Of those appointed, 20 were allegedly directly linked to AAP.

The Bench noted that in the present case, the allegations are in relation to nepotism by Maliwal to obtain favourable positions for the appointees who were known to them or associated with AAP. "The learned Trial Court has rightly placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Neera Yadav v. CBI (supra) where it was noted that promoting the interest of near and dear ones and nepotism, as alleged in the facts of the case, was also a form of corruption," the Court said. 

"The allegations as levelled by the prosecution are also not that the petitioners were appointing the people known to them to gain any direct advantage themselves, but rather, that by arbitrarily appointing the said persons, the petitioners sought to obtain pecuniary advantage by way of renumeration for the said appointed persons, who were associates and aides of AAP.....It is not denied that the accused persons were signatories and parties to the various meetings where the decision for creation of posts, appointments and increasing renumeration were made," it further noted. 

Highlighting that the very fact that admittedly appointments have been made and there is material in the chargesheet that persons who have been appointed without due process and proper assessment against non-existent posts and are given renumeration (pecuniary advantage), prima facie, satisfies the ingredients of Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the PC Act and attracts grave suspicion against the accused persons, the Single-Judge said, "The allegations are serious in nature and revolve around alleged nepotism by the accused persons to promote appointments of people known to them and associated with AAP." 

The Bench said, "At this stage, in the absence of any cogent material to suggest that a fair and transparent method was adopted by the petitioners to recruit the appointees, the learned Trial Court rightly rejected the claim made by the accused persons that they did not abuse their position in order to obtain pecuniary advantages for other persons or that there was no dishonest intention."

The Court noted the Trial Court after a detailed reasoned order had come to a prima facie conclusion that there was sufficient material to proceed to charge the accused. Accordingly, the Court ordered, "In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order. The present petitions are dismissed in the aforesaid observations. Pending applications also stand disposed of."

Cause Title: Swati Maliwal v. State [Neutral Citation No. 2024: DHC: 7258]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Rebecca John, Advocates  Chirag Madan, Harsh Bora, Ravleen Sabharwal, Rahul Agarwal, Pravir Singh, Nilanjan Dey, Tushar Yadav, Zillur Rehman, Anshuka Baruah

Respondent: Special Counsel Yoginder Handoo, Advocates Ashwin Kataria, Garvit Solanki and Medha Gaur, Additional Standing Counsel Rupali Bandhopadhya, Advocate Abhijeet Kumar

Click here to read/download the Judgment