Ahmedabad: A city sessions court agreed to hear two review applications filed by former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and Aam Aadmi Party’s Rajya Sabha member Sanjay Singh. They are challenging the metropolitan court’s orders in connection with the Gujarat University’s defamation case against them over their comments regarding Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s degree.
Additional sessions judge M P Purohit pardoned a delay of over 300 days caused by them in filing appeals against the trial court’s orders. Each of them was directed to pay Rs 10,000 as a cost to GU and its registrar, said GU’s advocate Amit Nair.
While Kejriwal challenged the Sep 23, 2023, order dismissing his application for conducting separate trials against him and Singh, the latter challenged the rejection of his request to the court not to frame charges without hearing him in Aug 2023.
Both of them put forth various grounds for the delay caused in filing appeals. The reasons included the prosecutions initiated against them in Delhi, their incarcerations, and political engagements. The court accepted their requests for pardoning the delay and stated, “The court should not be so technical that it may cause injustice to the parties. It is the duty of the court to see that the matter is decided on merits.”
Additional sessions judge M P Purohit pardoned a delay of over 300 days caused by them in filing appeals against the trial court’s orders. Each of them was directed to pay Rs 10,000 as a cost to GU and its registrar, said GU’s advocate Amit Nair.
While Kejriwal challenged the Sep 23, 2023, order dismissing his application for conducting separate trials against him and Singh, the latter challenged the rejection of his request to the court not to frame charges without hearing him in Aug 2023.
Both of them put forth various grounds for the delay caused in filing appeals. The reasons included the prosecutions initiated against them in Delhi, their incarcerations, and political engagements. The court accepted their requests for pardoning the delay and stated, “The court should not be so technical that it may cause injustice to the parties. It is the duty of the court to see that the matter is decided on merits.”