Author: Legal Correspondent
Publication: The Hindu
Date: April 21, 2005
URL: http://www.hindu.com/2005/04/21/stories/2005042105971300.htm
We will not adjourn proceedings
for any clarification
The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined
to entertain an application from Zahira Sheikh, key witness in the Best
Bakery case questioning the procedure adopted by the high-power committee
probing the veracity of the statements made by her as well as those by
social activist Teesta Setalvad.
Heading a bench, Justice Arijit
Pasayat told the counsel "We will not adjourn the proceedings for any clarification.
If at all she has any grievance that can be ventilated after the submission
of the report by the committee." As a result of this order the enquiry
will continue tomorrow.
In her application, Ms. Sheikh took
exception to the Registrar-General's order stating she was the subject
and scope of the inquiry. Refuting this, she said, "her conduct is not
the subject of inquiry but the subject is the alleged offer of inducements,
the manner of inducements and the persons responsible for the inducements."
Ms. Sheikh regretted that the manner
in which the inquiry committee had proceeded was contrary to the accepted
procedural requirements. While one yardstick was adopted for Ms. Setalvad,
"a 180 degree right about turn (procedure) while dealing with her." She
therefore prayed that this inquiry be assigned to the District and Sessions
Judge, Delhi or any other judicial officer. On April 18, the committee
in its order said that while Ms. Sheikh would be orally examined, written
replies would be sought from Ms. Setalvad on the ground that Ms. Sheikh
was not as mature, educated and literate as the social activist.
The order said: "the reasons behind
calling her for such examination and not calling her for written clarification
are known.
The Inquiry Officer has to find
out the reasons and persons behind Ms. Sheikh's change of stand.
The nature of most of the questions
may speak that written clarification would not serve the purpose."
Further, "Ms. Sheikh is not as matured,
educated and literate as Ms. Setalvad.
The scope of inquiry is Ms. Sheikh.
Ms. Setalvad may be examined if required, at a later stage and this is
not the final examination." It was this order that was challenged on Wednesday
by Ms. Sheikh but the court refused to entertain her application.
