SC relief to Gandhis but trial in Herald case will go on

The Supreme Court today provided relief to Congress President Sonia Gandhi and Vice President Rahul, giving them exemption from personal appearance in the trial court in the National Herald case and expunging certain observations of the High Court but refused to interfere with criminal proceedings before the lower court.
Allowing their plea for exemption from personal appearance before the trial court, which is scheduled to take up the matter on February 20, the apex court added a rider that it would be open to the magistrate at any stage to seek their personal appearance as and when required.
Though BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, who is the complainant in the case, contested the plea for exemption from appearance, a bench comprising justices J S Khehar and C Nagappan said that "in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and the position occupied by the petitioners, we are of the view that the presence of the petitioners before the trial court would cause more inconvenience than convenience."

"Petitioners shall be exempted from personal appearance and it is needless to say that it will be open for the trial court to seek their presence at any stage if and when their presence is required," the court said.
However, the apex court made it clear it was not in
agreement with the High Court which came out with firm and conclusive findings and observations relating to the case against the accused persons.

"We are of the view that it was not open for the high court to record the findings conclusively. And the same should have been left to the trial court to record after recording of evidence. We hereby direct expunging of all inferences, findings and observations arrived by high court on various factual aspects of the matter," the bench said.

But the bench said it affirms the views of the high court and reiterates that Gandhis and other accused can raise all their pleas and issues at the stage of framing of charges before the trial court.
"Accordingly, we permit petitioners to raise all the issues at the stage of framing of charges," the bench said.
Sibal assailed the ruling of the high court saying that firm findings and observations were made without taking note of the fact that no party allegedly affected had made any complaint.
The bench said, "We are not happy with some of these firm findings made by the High Court and requires limited interference.

"The high court can't draw firm conclusions. We will set aside all these firm conclusions and allow the proceedings to go in the trial court," the bench said during the hearing.
"There can't be a firm conclusion. It will not lead to fair trail. There should be a fair trial. We have to see that firm conclusions by the high court should not stand in the way of fair trail."
Sibal also made the submission that "somebody should have made the complaint of cheating and breach of trust and in the absence of such statement, how can it be said that it is a case of cheating and breach of trust? Had any Congressmen said that he has been cheated? At least somebody should say I have been cheated" then the complaint will hold ground.