Delhi court issues bailable warrant against Shashi Tharoor for ‘scorpion on Shivling’ remark
NEW DELHI: A Delhi court has issued a bailable warrant against Congress leader Shashi Tharoor for not appearing in a criminal defamation complaint against him over his alleged 'scorpion on Shivling' remarks referring to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Naveen Kumar Kashyap on Monday issued the warrant against the Congress leader for November 27, noting that neither Tharoor nor his counsel appeared before the court.
The magistrate also imposed a fine of Rs 500 on the complainant, Delhi BJP leader Rajiv Babbar, who was also did not appear before the court. However, Babbar was represented by a junior counsel.
"Neither complainant nor his main counsel is present. An exemption application is moved on behalf of the complainant. The same is vague in nature. It is stated in the application that he is in personal difficulty but what is such 'difficulty' is not explained at all in the application," the court said.
"Still, taking a lenient view, instead of dismissing the present complaint for reasons of non-appearance of complainant, he is burdened with a cost of Rs 500 to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Central District, Tis Hazari Court," it added.
The court also referred to the non-appearance of Tharoor and his counsel. It said it was taking a "lenient view" and issuing bailable warrants against the accused with a sum of Rs 5,000 and notice to his surety for November 27, 2019.
"The process should be issued within one week,â€? it said.
The court was hearing a criminal complaint filed against Tharoor by Babbar, who had said his religious sentiments were hurt by the Congress leader's statement.
In October last year, Tharoor had claimed that an unnamed RSS leader had compared Prime Minister Modi to "a scorpion sitting on a Shivling". He termed it an "extraordinarily striking metaphor".
Tharoor was granted bail in the case in JuneÂ on a personal bond of Rs 20,000 after he appeared before the court and moved an application.
The complainantRead More – Source