HC notice to news channel over Khurshid trust ‘fraud’
18 Oct 2012
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court today issued a notice to news channel Aaj Tak asking it to furnish all material relating to the alleged anomalies committed in the Dr Zakir Hussain Memorial Trust run by union law minister Salman Khurshid, on the basis of which a public interest litigation has been filed.
The notice was issued by a division bench comprising Justice Umanath Singh and Justice Satish Chandra on a PIL filed by a social activist Nutan Thakur, requesting the court to supervise the inquiry being carried out by the Uttar Pradesh police into the allegation of misappropriation of funds given by the government to the trust run by Khurshid and his wife Louise for distribution of free prosthetic equipment to physically disabled persons.
Additional solicitor general Vivek Tankha flew from Delhi to Lucknow to appear before the court on behalf of the central government. He argued that the PIL was not maintainable because the petitioner has not produced any relevant material in connection with the case. He also said the purpose of the petition was to get cheap publicity by scandalising the issue.
The court, after hearing the two parties, issued the notice to Aaj Tak news channel, which conducted the sting operation to expose the alleged anomalies done by Khurshid's trust. It set the next hearing for 30 October.
The PIL, filed on 15 October, also sought registration of a case on the basis of the charges levelled against the trust by India Against Corruption (IAC) leader Arvind Kejriwal. Six parties, including the UP government through principal secretary (home), the Economic Offences wing (EOW) of the state police, the central government through the union ministry of social justice, the principal secretary (social welfare) UP, TV channel Aaj Tak and the Dr Zakir Hussain Memorial Trust have been made respondents in the PIL.
On behalf of the state government, additional advocate general Bulbul Godiyal also raised similar preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the PIL. She also submitted before the court that an EOW inquiry was already being conducted under the direction of the UP chief minister.
Tankha alleged that it was a ''proxy'' PIL, filed in a casual manner to malign and scandalise a person. It was based on media reports without inquiring into detailed facts, he submitted.
On behalf of the petitioner, counsel Ashok Pandey submitted that the state government was investigating the matter without lodging an FIR. He said it should be probed after lodging a proper FIR.
Pandey alleged that signatures were forged and the Comptroller & Auditor General of India has said in a report that fraud has been committed.
