Samajwadi Party leader and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav has been accused of conspiring against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. A lawyer in the Supreme Court on Monday, Sept 10 claimed that Akhilesh was the mastermind who had embroiled Rahul in the rape case in 2011.
The petitioner Kishore Samrite challenged the Allahabad High Court's order directing a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe against him and imposing a cost of Rs 50 lakh regarding the rape case in which Rahul Gandhi was an accused. Samrite's counsel Kamini Jaiswal revealed the shocking statement in the apex court.
"He (Kishore Samrite) had been given instruction from Pandara Road to file the petition in the high court," said the counsel. Soon after her statement about Pandara Road, she was asked to clarify the identity of the person.
Justice Swatanter Kumar asked, "Why don't you disclose (the identity of the person)?" While replying to Mr Kumar, Jaiswal said, "The present Chief Minister and the leader of the party. I have given this statement to the CBI."
However, the lawyer, who represents the Uttar Pradesh government in the Supreme Court, overruled such statement regarding Akhilesh Yadav's involvement in instigating Rahul Gandhi in the sexual assault case. The apex court judge has adjourned the court hearing till Sept 17.
In an earlier counter-affidavit filed, Rahul had submitted that the allegations made against him were "totally false, frivolous, vexatious and are calculated to harm my standing an image."
Rahul had responded to the notice issued by the apex court on Apr 6, 2011 on a petition filed by a former MLA challenging Rs 50 lakh fine imposed on him by the Allahabad High Court in an alleged sexual exploitation case against him.
The apex court had also stayed the High Court order which had directed a CBI probe against the former legislator. Later, Samrite had reportedly filed an affidavit claiming that he had filed the petition in the High Court at the behest of Samajwadi Party.
The aggrieved former Samajwadi Party MLA had challenged the High Court order claiming it to be illegal and arbitrary and issued without application of mind. He wanted the fine to be waived.