New Delhi, September 12
In the continued long arguments in former Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal’s case before the Supreme Court, his counsel today questioned the dropping of the charges of corruption against Sukhbir Singh Badal, son of the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) president, by the Vigilance Bureau if the case against him was genuine.

Badal’s counsel K.K. Venugopal told a Bench of Mr Justice Arijit Pasayat and Mr Justice S.H. Kapadia that if the corruption charges against Sukhbir Singh were to be dropped at all, how could they be sustained against the former Chief Minister. He said the real reasons for dropping the corruption charges against Sukhbir Singh was that the government had faulted in not obtaining sanction for his prosecution from Rajya Sabha chairperson for his being an MP.

In view of this fault, the Vigilance Bureau had chosen only to retain the charges of abetment under Sections 8 and 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against Sukhbir Singh after dropping the charges of corruption under Section 13(1) (d) and claimed before the trial court as well as the high court that for the offence of abtement, no sanction was required.

This was wrong proposition of law as a public servant could not be charged with only abetment if he was a pubic servant and provided some favour to someone. It has been alleged in the chargesheet that Sukhbir Singh took bribes to get posting and transfers of high officials, then how can he be prosecuted only for the offence of abetment, Venugopal, appearing with former Punjab Advocate General H.S. Mattewal for Badal asked.

This clearly indicated “mala fide” intention of the Congress government in Punjab to prosecute Badal and his family members due to political vendetta, Venugopal said, while trying to emphasis that the provision of sanction was made in the law to prevent frivolous prosecution of a public servant.

Punjab Advocate General R.S. Cheema and other senior counsel engaged by the state to argue the politically sensitive case, has yet to get their turn to respond to various questions raised by Badal’s counsel during the three-day long argument so far, which remained inconclusive today. The hearing would continue tomorrow.