Delhi HC dismisses pleas by Maliwal, 3 others against framing of graft charges

The allegations have been made for the period from August 6, 2015, to August 1, 2016, when Maliwal was the chairperson of DCW and the three others were its members.

Delhi HC, swati Maliwal, graft charges, corruption charges, dcw appointments, nepotism, sarika chaudhary, promila gupta, farheen malick, criminal conspiracy, ipc, prevention of corruption act, Indian express news

AAP MP Swati Maliwal. (PTI Photo)

The Delhi High Court Friday dismissed two pleas — one by AAP Rajya Sabha MP Swati Maliwal and another by Sarika Chaudhary, Promila Gupta, and Farheen Malick — challenging a trial court’s order for framing of corruption charges against them while they were appointed at the Delhi Commission for Women (DCW).

The court of Justice Amit Mahajan held that “nepotism is also a type of corruption” that can deprive “eligible candidates of a fair opportunity to secure the appointments”. Observing that all the accused were part of the “arbitrary unanimous decision”, it also stated that the trial court rightly rejected their claim that there was no criminal conspiracy.

The four were chargesheeted under Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act’s sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d). The allegations have been made for the period from August 6, 2015, to August 1, 2016, when Maliwal was the chairperson of DCW and the three others were its members.

The four accused allegedly conspired and abused their official positions to obtain pecuniary advantages for AAP workers and acquaintances of Maliwal as well as for the party by appointing the said acquaintances and party workers to different posts of DCW without following due process.

The prosecution has claimed that of the 90 appointments made in DCW between August 6, 2015, to August 1, 2016, 71 people were appointed on a contractual basis and 16 were appointed for ‘Dial 181’, while no record of the appointment of the remaining three appointees could be found.

A Rouse Avenue court in December 2022 directed the framing of the charges after observing that there was “prima facie sufficient material” against them.

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram