Delhi High Court To Hear On Maintainability Plea Alleging Union Minister Smriti Irani Furnished False Info About Her Education

The Delhi High Court will hear on October 19, a plea alleging that Union Minister Smriti Irani furnished “false and misleading information” regarding her educational qualification in three affidavits filed before the Election Commission of India in 2004, 2011 and 2014.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued notice to the prosecution in the petition which has been moved by one Ahmer Khan challenging a trial court order rejecting his complaint and also refusing to summon Irani in the matter.

“Issue notice to State/respondent no. 1. Mr. Manoj Pant, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of State,” the court said while listing the matter on October 19 for arguments on maintainability.

Khan, in his complaint, alleged that the Union Minister gave false information about her educational qualification in three affidavits filed before ECI while filing her nominations for Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha polls.

The plea states that for contesting elections for Lok Sabha in the year 2004 from Chandni Chowk, Irani in her affidavit stated that she completed BA in 1996 from Delhi University (School of correspondence). 

However, the plea adds that while contesting elections for Rajya Sabha from Gujarat, she filed another affidavit in 2011 stating that her highest educational qualification was “B.Com Part 1 School of Correspondence-University of Delhi in 1994.”

Khan also stated that another affidavit was filed by the Union Minister in 2014 for contesting elections for Lok Sabha from Amethi wherein she stated that she had “Bachelor of Commerce Part-1 from school of open learning (Correspondence) University of Delhi in 1994.”

During the hearing today, Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State submitted that Khan had not approached the Sessions Court and had directly approached the High Court by filing the revision petition.

On the other hand, Khan’s counsel submitted that the plea was maintainable as the Sessions Court and the High Court have concurrent jurisdiction.

It is Khan’s case that there was clear discrepancy in the three affidavits and that Irani deliberately furnished false information.

In his petition, Khan has said that that the Metropolitan Magistrate vide impugned order passed on October 18, 2016, rejected his compliant and declined to summon Irani on “completely unfounded, speculative and frivolous grounds.”

Khan has submitted that the Metropolitan Magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction in dismissing the complaint by “recording a positive finding” that no prima facie case was made against Irani.

“For that the Ld. Magistrate has literally conferred a degree to the respondent accused by holding that the it is clear from CW4/B that she has passed subsidiary papers chosen vide CW4/A and hence no false information was given qua her educational qualification is completely illegal, without authority and untenable. The Ld. Magistrate holds that there is no rule to stop a person from claiming to have passed the examination of 1st year of Bachelor even if she has not completed the full course,” the plea states.

Advocates Rajesh Inamdar, Sheena T. and Ayushi Mittal appeared for the petitioner.

APP Manoj Pant appeared for the State.

Case Title: Ahmer Khan v. State & Anr.

Click Here To Read Order