High Court pulls up Ashok Parnami over contempt petition

JAIPUR: The Rajasthan High Court pulled up state BJP president Ashok Parnami for not replying to a contempt petition.
Coming down heavily on Parnami, the court asked if it was arrogance of power or if he thought he could buy the court for not filing a reply.

The division bench of justices K S Jhaveri and V K Vyas made these comments while hearing a contempt petition filed by lawyer Poonam Chand Bhandari over a video showing Parnami directing people in his constituency to go ahead with the construction of a parking lot in a public park in violation of a high court order.

When the petition came up for hearing in the morning, the court noticed that there was no reply from his side. The court then directed his lawyer to present Parmani in the court by 2 pm and threatened to issue an arrest warrant against him. Parnami had to rush to the court from the assembly.

An upset court asked Parnmai why he had failed to file the reply. His lawyers said they got the court notice only the previous day.

The court said the case was in public knowledge as it was published in newspapers. Besides, the notice was also personally issued in the name of advocate general Narpatmal Lodha. When Lodha also feigned ignorance, the court showed him the notice issued in his name. “Even if the notice had only reached you the other day, how much time do you require to type an apology? But you have not even done that,” the court observed.

Parnami tried to pacify the court by saying that he had the highest respect for the court and would remain to have so. The court then reminded him of the statement in the video and published in a newspaper, in which he is heard saying that “I will look the other way and you construct a parking in a public park though there is a court order against it”.Parnami contended that the statement was only partly published in the newspaper leaving out the rest of his comment.

The court then asked if he had filed a defamation notice against the newspaper. He replied in the negative. The court then said that it meant that he had accepted the comment and it amounted to contempt of court. His lawyers kept on asking for more time and the court finally relented and asked him to file the reply by Friday.