La Corte Suprema busca la respuesta de un abogado senior and el recibo de fondos extranjeros como ASG

NEW DELHI: On Wednesday, He Sought The Center's Response To A PIL Seeking An SIT Investigation For The Presumed Receipt Of A Senior Counsel When He Held The Additional Attorney General's Sensitive Post During The UPA Regime From 2009 To 2014.

Responding To The Developments In The Courts, NGO Lawyers ' The Collective, In A Statement Signed By Jaising, Said That The Petition Had The Intention To Victimize It By Addressing The Case Of An Employee Dismissed From The SC That Has Filed Complaints Against The CJI. The Case Was" An Evident Victimization Of It As It Has Addressed The Question Of The Procedure Adopted In Relation To The Accusation Of Sexual Harassment Against The CJI," The Statement Reads.

Appearing For Lawyers ' Voice, The Petitioner Against Jaising, Chief Advocate Purushendra Kaurav Cited The Ministry Of The Interior Orders Of May 31, 2016 And November 27, 2016, And He Said To The Court," Jaising And Anand Grover (Secretary And President Of NGO Lawyers) Collective) In Violation Of The Law Of Regulation Of Foreign Contributions (FCRA) Has Encouraged To Influence In The Democratic Process Of The Country In The Political Arena Exerting Pressure In An Unauthorized Way With Parliamentarians And The Media To Approve Certain Legislations And Influence Political Decisions. "



The Petition Said That This Was Done While Jaising Occupied The Office Of The Additional Attorney General Of India, Who Can Play A Role In" Changing Government Policy Through Binding Legal Opinions" . The Submitter Accused The Center Of Not Having Conducted The Investigation, Since 2016, To The NGO And Its Responsible To Its Logical Conclusion.

A Bank Of The Supreme Court And Justice President, Deepak Gupta, Issued Notices To The Center, The Jaising Collective, Grover And Lawyers And Searched Their Answers In Six Weeks. The Bank Also Said That The Pendency Of The Petition In The SC Was Not An Impediment For The Investigation Agencies To Act In Accordance With The Law.

The Lawyers ' The Collective Declaration Said That Jaising Had Addressed The Issue Of Alleged Procedural Irregularities In The Treatment Of Sexual Harassment Complaint Against The CJI As A Concerned Citizen, A Leading Member Of The Lawyer And Defender Of Women's Rights, Without Doing Comments. On The Background Of The Pleadings "

" Bearing In Mind That Jaising Has Publicly Expressed Its Opinion On The Question Of Due Process In Relation To The Conduct Of The Internal Investigation, The CJI Should Have Abstained From Hearing The Matter," Said The NGO. Jaising Has Been Discussing Many Successful Issues Before The Bank Led By The CJI, Even When She Publicly Criticized The Failures Of Procedure Of Both The CJI And The Internal Panel.

A Few Days Ago, Chief Advocate AM Singhvi Had Discussed On Behalf Of Former Kolkata Police Commissioner Rajeev Kumar, Who Was Questioning CBI's Request To Request His Custody Interrogation. After An Argument Prepared By Singhvi, Jaising Stood Before The Bank Led By The CJI To Defend The Police. When The Bank Said That Only One Lawyer Could Argue For A Litigant, Jaising Said That While Singhvi Advocated For The Former Police Commissioner, She Would Argue For Rajeev Kumar As An Individual.

The Procedure Directed By The CJI Bowed And Allowed Jaising To Argument To The Displeasure Of IWC, Who Was Wondering How Rajeev Kumar Would Have Two Identities, One As Former Police Commissioner And The Other As Individual When It Was His Presumed Role In The Investigations Carried Out By The SIT Addressed In The Chit Background Scam Cases.

The PIL Alleged That, Of The Orders Approved By The Center In 2016, It Could Not Be Discarded That Jaising Abused Its Official Position As ASG And Accepted Such Foreign Contribution As A Reward For Prohibiting Any Official Act And/or Official Function Or To Favor Or Disfavor To Any Person Who Renders Services To The State Or Influences A Public Server And/Or Passes Binding Instructions In The Form Of Legal Opinion To Any Government Department That Favors And Promotes The Objectives Of The Foreign Donors "

He Accused The Collective Lawyers Of Using Foreign Contributions To Cover The Expenses Of Dharnas, Meetings And Campaigns To Influence The Political Decisions. The PIL Said That The Foreign Funds Were Received By Jaising, Grover And His NGO" Predominantly Ford Foundation And Open Society Foundation."

It Is A Matter Of Public Knowledge That The Ford Foundation Acts As A Frontal Organization Of The Principal International Research Agency Of A Country Of Origin. Said Association Has Been Known For Performing Ostensible Roles In Destabilizing The Economy And The Political Establishments Of Other Countries Through A Participatory Process And/Or By Influencing Public Servants And In The Public Opinion Of The Target Country, Said.

The PIL Said That Jaising Could Also Be In Disagreement With The Corruption Prevention Act For Receiving Foreign Funds While It Was An ASG For The Union Government From July 2009 Until May 2014, During Which It Received A Compensation Of Rs 96 , 60 Lakh Of The Government. It Is Not Allowed By Law For A Country Law Officer To Remain On The Lists Of A Private Entity That Receives Payments Of Foreign Contributions For Undisclosed Purposes. She Also Traveled Abroad And Her Travel Expenses Were Suffered By Contributions Received By Collective Lawyers From Foreign Sources, The PIL Alleged.

Lawyers ' Collectively, Through Jaising, Strongly Disputed The Bad Use Of Foreign Funds And Indicated The Haste With Which The Record Doubles The Standard Operating Procedure To List The Petitions To Obtain This PIL In Particular Within The Few Days That The Defects Are Cured. He Said, Although The Petitioner's Defender (PIL) Did Not Seek Orally Any Provisional Order, The Court Has Issued An Order In The Sense That The Petition Of The Petition Will Not Stand In The Way Of The Government Agencies That Proceed In The Matter.

comments