MUMBAI: Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis should resign and renounce politics, the NCP has demanded after the SC decision to set aside Bombay High Court order giving him clean chit in a case of suppression of criminal matters in the 2014 poll affidavit.
Fadnavis, however, has said that it is totally wrong and contemptuous to say that Supreme Court has allowed prosecution and hence there is no need for resignation.
“The SC verdict is clear. The court has directed that the CM can be prosecuted and hence, he now has lost the moral right to remain on the post. We welcome the SC decision,” said NCP Mumbai Chief Nawab Malik.
Anther NCP spokesperson Mahesh Tapase accused Fadnavis of telling lies to the electorate by concealing facts about pending criminal cases against him.
“The BJP, which claims high moral standards, should reject his candidature,” Tapase said.
However, Fadnavis has termed the interpretation as “wrong” and “contemptuous” while stating that the Supreme Court has just “remanded back” the case to trial court for fresh consideration, which means that the case will again be heard in the trial court to ascertain whether a case for prosecution is made out or not.
Two cases of alleged cheating and forgery were filed against Fadnavis in 1996 and 1998 where charges were not framed. Fadnavis was accused of hiding information on these cases in his election affidavit filed in 2014.
A rejoinder sent by the CM’s office, states that, “The case was argued in the trial court with a demand to prosecute CM for concealing the criminal cases in his election affidavit. The Trial court dismissed the plea on which the complainant went to the Sessions court. The Sessions court set aside the judgement and remanded it back to trial court saying it has not passed a speaking order. This order of Sessions court was challenged by CM in the High court and The High court set aside the order of the Sessions Court and said no case is made out. The complainant went to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has remanded back the case to trial court for fresh consideration. Hence it will again be heard in the trial court to ascertain whether a case for prosecution is made out or not.”
According to the rejoinder from the CM’s office, both the cases in question were filed by the same lawyer in early ‘90s when Fadnavis was a corporator. In one case he had filed a complaint to the government to remove a Govt pleader and published it in press against which the lawyer went for a criminal definition against him. And in other case the lawyer filed a case against the corporation and Fadnavis, the corporator, who had demanded that tax be applied on a slum property. The lawyer had claimed that the property under dispute belonged to him and filed the case.
“Both the cases are private cases, filed for fighting for a public cause and while the defamation case had been withdrawn by the lawyer, the other complaint is dismissed by the High Court,” said the rejoinder from CMO.