Terming it “vengeful”, the AAP on Monday accused the BJP of “attempting to replace” Delhi government-appointed lawyers with “its own” to allegedly harass and defame innocent farmers in criminal cases filed in relation to the ongoing farmers’ agitation.
AAP national spokesperson Raghav Chadha alleged the BJP wanted to replace the Delhi government’s lawyers not with the intention of bringing justice to the farmers but to “seek revenge”. “A few days ago, a virtual meeting took place between the L-G and the Delhi Home Minister, wherein BJP’s intentions became crystal clear,” he alleged.
“The BJP’s appointee, the Lieutenant-Governor, said they will remove Delhi government’s lawyers and that they wish to get new lawyers as they want the farmers punished; that they wish to teach these farmers a lesson,” he also alleged.
Mr. Chadha alleged the BJP’s only intention was to “seek revenge”on farmers, punish them and defame their movement.
This, he alleged, was why the BJP wished to replace the Delhi government’s public prosecutors with “their public prosecutors” in the farmer stir-related cases.
“I want to say this to the BJP that till Delhi has Arvind Kejriwal’s government, you cannot mess with any farmer. We favour justice. I am repeating again that the Aam Aadmi” Party wants justice and not any revenge,” he said.
Valid request
Senior officers present in the meeting between the L-G and the Delhi Home Minister said that apart from the earlier disagreement on file, the L-G on July 1 expressed his disagreement at the Home Minister's turning down of the “valid request” of the Delhi police for the appointment of special public prosecutors.
Mr. Baijal, according to the officers concerned, then wrote to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on the issue on July 2. The cases in question, according to these officers, related to incidents on January 26 in which as many as 394 police officers were injured.
“Keeping in view the enormity and sensitivity of the matter, I had called the relevant file from the Home Department on March 24. The police have already given a detailed justification for the appointment of 11 special public prosecutors in these matters,” Mr. Baijal was quoted as having stated.
“These cases are sensitive in nature and require careful handling in a time-bound manner in view of the gravity of the offences and implications for law and order. Therefore, I see no reason why the proposal of the police should not be agreed to,” Mr. Baijal stated.
No doubt, Mr. Baijal stated, that the public prosecutor represents the State by the virtue of office, but is also an officer of the court and is required to render assistance to the court in arriving at “a just and equitable decision”. There was, he also stated, “no reason to suspect” that special public prosecutors wouldn’t perform their duty fearlessly and impartially as officers of the court.
“Since the difference of opinion still persists, in view of the significance and urgency of the matter, I would request Chief Minister to expeditiously refer the matter to the Council of Ministers for its consideration and decision,” he stated.
