Maharashtra CM Devendra Fadnavis gets relief from court, order quashed regarding complaints

Mumbai: The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently came to the rescue of Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis who was summoned by a Sessions Court in the city. The CM was asked to remain present before the Sessions Court with regards to a complaint filed against him by an advocate.

In his complaint, advocate Satish Ukey (37) had contended that the 46-year-old Fadnavis, while submitting his nomination papers for the 2014 elections, did not disclose all the pending criminal cases against him. According to Ukey, the BJP leader did not detail two pending criminal cases in his affidavit and has violated the provisions of Representation of the People’s Act 1951.

He claimed that Fadnavis only mentioned the criminal cases wherein charges were framed against him but failed to list the two cases in which a Magistrate’s court had taken cognizance and was yet to frame charges. He further claimed that this fact was brought to the notice of the Election Commission way back in 2014; however, the commission asked him to approach a court, instead of seeking relief against Fadnavis.

The two cases pointed out by Ukey are both registered in Nagpur. Of the two cases, Fadnavis is booked for defamation in one case while in the other provisions of mischief, forgery and criminal intimidation were invoked against the CM.

However, the magistrate, before whom Ukey filed this complaint, dismissed the same, causing him to challenge the orders in the Sessions Court. The Sessions Judge, after noting that the Magistrate had passed a ‘cryptic and non-speaking’ order, quashed the same and remanded the matter back to the Magistrate asking him to decide the matter afresh.

Aggrieved with this order of the Sessions Judge, Fadnavis moved a single-judge bench of Justice Sunil Shukre of the high Court and sought quashing of the orders.

Having heard all the sides, Justice Shukre said, “The order passed by the Magistrate, disagreeing with the view expressed by the Sessions Judge, must be said to be a well-reasoned order.  I do not understand as to how such an order could have been described as a cryptic order and dealt with disdain by the Sessions Judge.”

“For an order to be reasoned, it is not necessary that it must run into several pages. Reasons can be stated and best reasons have always been stated in an order which is short, precise and succinct. Sometimes, even the long orders do not contain any reasons. But, as I understand, it is not the length of the order but the strength of analysis and logic contained in an order which determines its character. The Sessions Judge, however, has missed this basic attribute of a reasoned order and thus committed a perversity in finding something in the order of the Magistrate which was not its frailty,” Justice Shukre added.