It asked the Centre and the Delhi government to move an appropriate bench for resolving the dispute on the issue.
A case was filed against Swamy in October 2011 by the Crime Branch of Delhi Police on a complaint from the National Commission for Minorities, for writing in July 2011 the alleged inflammatory article which the complaint said was intended to spread communal enmity.
Both Centre and Delhi government opposed each other when Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain, appearing for Delhi Police claimed that special public prosecutor (SPP) Shailendra Babbar is assisting him in the case and he has got an order from the LG office appointing him to represent the police.
Mehra further submitted that in view of his submissions, Babbar cannot be allowed to represent this case.
During the hearing, there was an exchange of words between counsel for both the governments inside the court room, which later continued outside also.
Observing this, the court ordered that in view of the controversy, it will hear the matter only after the issue, which has cropped up now, is settled.
date, no sanction has been accorded by the Centre to prosecute his client.
He submitted that Swamy's right for speedy justice cannot be curtailed as the charge sheet has also not been filed so far.
Hearing this, Mehra said that sanction has been sought from the Delhi government and the charge sheet is ready, which can be filed without getting the sanction also.
ASG Jain opposed Mehra's submission, saying charge sheet cannot be filed without sanction and charged the Delhi government with making false statement.
To this, Mehra replied that "it is a match fixed and the Centre wants to give benefit to the petitioner (Swamy)."
He further said that the investigation was going on and no case has been made out so far.
Earlier, Tulsi had stated that in 2005, Swamy had written a book on terrorism in India and its content had not caused any sort of communal disturbance but writing of an article based on the book, has become offensive.
Swamy was granted anticipatory bail in January 2012 by the high court after he had given an undertaking in the court that he would refrain from writing such articles in future.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
