The alleged anti-defection case related to six former JVM legislators, switching to the BJP post-elections, is nearing conclusion with the Tribunal ordering to shortlist the remaining witnesses by cutting down the original list of 78. Also, at least six witnesses have to be presented in each hearing now onwards.
Speaker Dinesh Oraon’s order in this regard, in a hearing taking place on Friday, is expected to pave the way for ending the cumbersome testimony process by December. “The Speaker told the defense to shortlist all the witnesses it wants to present before the Tribunal. To this their lawyers said that not more than 20 out of remaining over 55 are required to be brought. To this the Court directed them to come up with the curtailed list on the next date of December 1,” said an Assembly official present in the court room during the hearing.
About 20 witnesses out of total 78 from the MLAs’ side could be produced so far for recording their statements. This is stark opposite to the prosecution JVM which just named eight witnesses and most of them gave their testimony in the form of affidavits saving court’s precious time in the process.
“The Speaker has also said that at least six persons, one from the each MLA in question, should be presented in every hearing taking place in future. If the shortlisted names go to 20, even then it would not take three-four dates to accomplish the exercise. Thereafter, it would depend on our side whether to cross examine all of them or some. We see now the case coming close to finalisation, provided they do not sabotage the proceeding with new set of tactics,” said RN Sahay, the lawyer from the JVM.
Sahay in his argument also stressed calling on the MLAs namely Randhir Singh, Amar Kumar Bauri, Alok Chaurasia, Navin Jaiswal, Ganesh Kumar Ganjhu and Janki Prasad Yadav- into the witness boxes. “So far they have brought in insignificant witnesses parroting identical statements fed to them. There is nothing new in the 20-odd witnesses presented by them before the Tribunal till date. Now, when the number has come to 20, we may get a chance to cross examine the real men behind all this very soon,” said the lawyer.
Prosecution is also of the view that since the matter is not criminal in nature all the witnesses named by the defence need not necessarily be presented and cross examined. “Our main contention is whether in this case 10th Schedule of the Constitution has been violated or not. The court has on previous occasions instructed them for going for written testimony in a bulk. But since the intentions are clear, they have resorted to delaying tactics,” said another lawyer linked with the case.