Former Samajwadi Party leader Amar Singh on Wednesday found himself in a tight spot in the Supreme Court, which questioned his change of stance in the case of his “CDs” on the change of his political affiliation and virtually pulled him up for “wasting” the precious time of the court if he was to withdraw his allegations against the Congress and its president.
The strong comments against Mr Singh came from a bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly in the wake of his two-page fresh affidavit stating that he was “satisfied with the investigation of the Delhi police and therefore, withdraws his averments, contentions and allegations made against respondent No. 7 (Congress Party through its president).”
However, in the original petition filed by Mr Singh in 2006 when he was an important leader of SP, he had accused the Congress and its president of getting his phone tapped through the Delhi police with “illegal” authorisation by the Delhi government. However, the probe done by the police revealed that gang of “blackmailers” had done the tapping on two forged letters.
“In view of your revised affidavit, how do you affirm the allegations against the political party and its president,” the bench asked Mr Singh’s counsel Abhishek Singhvi pointing it out that his earlier petition claimed that the averments in it was based on his “personal knowledge”.
Even Mr Singh’s counsel Abhishek Singvi, who is also a spokesman of the Congress, found himself in a intriguing situation when the court pointed out that even he was the target of Mr Singh’s ire in 2006.
When someone affirmed in a sworn affidavit that he had a “personal knowledge” about something, it means that he knows about it personally. “How can that change with the passage of time?” the bench asked Mr Singhvi, pointing out “you cannot contradict your personal knowledge”.
The top court told Mr Singh’s lawyer plainly that if his client’s personal knowledge was so “dubious” then “the court itself has become a victim of as it has been hearing the case for the past five years.”
“If your are in great doubt, the court could have not given indulgence to it (petition). You wasted the time of the court. It is virtually taking the court for a ride,” the top court said.
Mr Singh in his original petition filed when relations between the SP and the Congress were at the lowest ebb had alleged that he had been “targeted” by the Congress Party, its chief and even the spokesperson (Abhishek Singhvi) as there seemed to be concerted campaign by these leaders to tap his telephone in a bid to “coerce them”.