Justice Rajiv Shakdher said one “defect” in the plea was that the volunteer should have been made a party in the petition as it was on her complaint that the summons were issued.
The other “fault” pointed out by the court was that Delhi government need not be impleaded, as the plea has not sought removal of any member of the Delhi Commission for Women (DCW).
The court refused to consider the repeated pleas of Vishwas’ counsel Somnath Bharti for an interim stay on the summons, saying that grant of any relief at this stage, without the presence of the complainant, would be “like putting the cart before the horse”.
It refused to hear the matter on May 18, as sought by Bharti and listed it for hearing on May 22, saying “there was no tearing hurry”. The court also told Bharti that he ought not have disclosed the name of the complainant during the hearing.
It also refused to consider the lawyer’s argument that media would exploit the matter, saying “keep that aspect outside the court”.
On the issue of making the complainant a party, Bharti argued that his client was challenging the conduct of DCW and had nothing against the woman. He contended that since no allegations were made against Vishwas in the complaint, how could summons be issued against him.
Questioning the authority of DCW to issue such summons claiming it had no jurisdiction to deal with the issue raised by the complainant, the petitioner has also sought that the woman be restrained from making any public statement.
PTI