HC refuses to stay publication of Pathak Comm report

New Delhi, Aug 4 (UNI) While hearing a petition of Oil-for-food scam prime accused Andaleeb Sehgal, the Delhi High Court today refused to stay the publication of the Justice Pathak Commission report indicting former External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh and his son Jagat Singh.

A three-Judge bench comprising Justices T S Thakur, Vikramjit Sen and S L Bhayana refused to grant a stay on making the report public.

The order paved the way for the government to table the report in Parliament.

However, the court granted liberty to Sehgal to challenge the report, if it had tarnished the image of the petitioner causing irreparable damage.

''Supposing your client is held innocent by the Commission will you still assail the report," the Bench asked Sehgal's counsel Rajiv Sawhney.

Asking Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Gopal Subramanium to place a copy of the report in a sealed cover, the court said it would pass any direction only after going through the documents.

In a fresh application, Sehgal prayed for direction to the government restraining it from making public the report which directly alleged that Sehgal was one of the beneficiaries of the oil-for-food coupons given by the then Iraqi President Saddam Hussain.

Adjourning the matter till September 1, the court issued notice to the Pathak Commission to file a reply to the petition filed by Sehgal. Seeking restraint on the publication of the report, Mr Sawhney asked how could the media publish the contents of the report so extensively when it was submitted to the Prime Minister only.

The extracts of the report clearly tarnished the image and destroyed the reputation of Sehgal, said Mr Sawhney.

In May 2006, Sehgal had filed a petition and sought direction of the Court to the Pathak Commission to allow him to be accompanied by his Lawyers during the interrogation and right to cross examine the witnesses who had allegedly deposed against him.

''The Commission has declined the request made by the deponents for direction to the Enforcement Directorate to provide the copies of the documents and records. We are seriously prejudiced by this and are having to make a statement without the benefit of all our records and are threatened with penal consequences,'' said the petition.

UNI