Jethmalani quits as Kejriwal's counsel, seeks Rs 2 crore fee

TNN
July 26, 2017

New Delhi, Jul 26: Ram Jethmalani has quit as chief minister Arvind Kejriwal's counsel in the civil and criminal defamation cases filed by Union finance minister Arun Jaitley against the CM.jethmalani

Following Kejriwal's denial of having instructed the lawyer to use derogatory language against Jaitley during court proceedings on May 17, the lawyer has written a letter to the CM, accusing him of using even more offensive language against Jaitley during private discussions on the case.

Jethmalani has asked Kejriwal to settle his legal fees amounting to more than Rs 2 cro5re. The lawyer used an offensive word, amounting to accusing Jaitley of being a criminal, during proceedings of the Rs 10-crore defamation case against Kejriwal and five other AAP leaders.

Jaitley asked Jethmalani if the word was spoken on his client's instruction. The lawyer replied in the affirmative and Jaitley filed another Rs 10-crore defamation suit against the CM.

Stung by the fresh defamation suit, Kejriwal filed an affidavit in Delhi high court and wrote a letter to Jethmalani saying he had not given any instructions for use of the derogatory word.

In his affidavit, Kejriwal said it was " inconceivable that he would even think of instructing the senior counsel to use such objectionable words". "Neither the defendant (Kejriwal) nor the counsel (Anupam Srivastava) briefing the senior counsel (Jethmalani) gave instructions to the senior counsel to use the objectionable words on May 17, 2017," Kejriwal said in the affidavit.

In response, after conveying his decision to quit as the CM's advocate, Jethmalani also told the CM to settle his legal fee, which, by a conservative estimate, would be over Rs 2 crore. The Delhi government had, this February, cleared a payment of Rs 3.5 crore to Jethmalani, which included Rs 1 crore as retainer and Rs 22 lakh as fee for each appearance in court.

However, the chief minister's office refused to comment on the matter, saying they "have no intimation on Jethmalani withdrawing from the case so far".

Jethmalani said, "Kejriwal has written a letter to me. I have replied to that. I am not going to divulge the details of either of the letters. You ask Kejriwal to make public both the letters. I have promised him not to make it public."

Sources said, in his letter, Jethmalani reminded Kejriwal about many conferences they had at the lawyer's residence and during which he had informed the CM about how PM Narendra Modi, impressed by his relentless fight against black money, had asked him to join BJP in 2010.

The letter also said the CM had shared the lawyer's anguish about BJP doing nothing to keep its election-eve promise to get back black money and deposit Rs 15 lakh in every Indian's bank account and how Jethmalani held Modi and Jaitley responsible for this.

During such conversations, Jethmalani alleged in his letter, Kejriwal had used even more objectionable words against Jaitley. The alleged use of derogatory words by Kejriwal during the conference appeared to have made Jethmalani repeat them during the May 17 proceedings before the HC registrar in the first defamation suit.

Jaitley had filed an application for expediting the recording of evidence in an orderly and fair manner in the first Rs 10-crore defamation suit against Kejriwal and the five AAP leaders for making allegations of corruption against him by them.

Comments

Rajarama Shetty
 - 
Thursday, 27 Jul 2017

Mr. Ramanath Rai is able & experienced .six time MLA..!! MOST SENIOR .dedicated CONGRESS MAN for more than 40 years?

Are there better candidates than him?

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
July 30,2020

Kochi, Jul 30: The Kerala High Court on Thursday refused to grant the extension for the stay of a 74-year-old US citizen, Johnny Paul Pierce, who had earlier said that he felt safer to remain in India than in the United States amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

The single-judge bench of Justice CS Dias, which considered the writ petition, observed that the grant or extension of visa to foreign nationals fall exclusively within the domain of the Government of India (GoI) and that judicial review in such matters is minimal.

The power of the GoI to expel foreigners is absolute and unlimited, the bench said.

"In view of the categoric declaration of law by the Supreme Court, the plea of the petitioner to permit him to stay back in India cannot be accepted, as it falls within the purview of the guidelines and the discretion of the Government of India," the order said.

"The petitioner cannot be heard that the guidelines/policies/regulations formulated by the Government of India, that an American national though has been granted a visa having validity of five years has to leave India within 180 days, is irrational or unreasonable," it added.

The High Court, which was hearing a plea to permit the US citizen to stay in India for a further period of six months, said that the petitioner does not have a case that there is an infraction of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

"The petitioner was well aware of the visa conditions when he arrived in India, and it is too late in the day for him to raise a grievance on the visa conditions," the bench said noting that the petitioner's love for India was heartening.

The High Court also directed the Foreigners Registration Officer to consider the petitioner's representation within a period of two weeks in accordance with the applicable guidelines and policies.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
January 11,2020

New Delhi, Jan 11: The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the curative petition of two death row convicts in 2012 Nirbhaya gang-rape case on January 14.

A five-judge Bench of Justices N V Ramana, Arun Mishra, R F Nariman, R Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan will hear the petition filed by Vinay Sharma and Mukesh.

The duo had moved a curative petition in the top court after a Delhi court issued a death warrant in their name and announced January 22 as the date of their execution.

Besides them, two other convicts named Pawan and Akshay are also slated to be executed on the same day at 7 am in Delhi's Tihar Jail premises.

They were convicted and sentenced to death for raping a 23-year-old woman on a moving bus in the national capital on the night of December 16, 2012.

The victim, who was later given the name Nirbhaya, died at a hospital in Singapore where she had been airlifted for medical treatment.

A curative petition is the last judicial resort available for redressal of grievances. It is decided by the judges in-chamber.

If it is rejected, they are legally bound to move a mercy petition. It is filed before the President who has the power to commute it to life imprisonment.

The court after issuing a black warrant in their name gave them two weeks' time to file both the curative and mercy petition.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
July 16,2020

New Delhi, Jul 16: The Rajasthan High Court will hear Thursday afternoon a petition filed on behalf of the Sachin Pilot camp, challenging a move to disqualify dissident MLAs from the state assembly.

The plea against the disqualification notices sent from the Speaker’s office to Pilot and 18 other Congress MLAs will be heard by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.

The 19 MLAs were sent notices Tuesday by the Speaker after the Congress complained that the MLAs had defied a party whip to attend two Congress Legislature Party meetings. 

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.