This story is from March 10, 2015

MPHC notice to AG seeking opinion on immunity to governor

Madhya Pradesh high court on Monday through a notice to Attorney General of India sought his opinion on immunity to governors under Section 361 of Constitution while hearing a petition filed by Madhya Pradesh governor Ram Naresh Yadav seeking to quash FIR registered against him.
MPHC notice to AG seeking opinion on immunity to governor
JABALPUR: Madhya Pradesh high court on Monday through a notice to Attorney General of India sought his opinion on immunity to governors under Section 361 of Constitution while hearing a petition filed by Madhya Pradesh governor Ram Naresh Yadav seeking to quash FIR registered against him.
Court also issued notices to Madhya Pradesh chief secretary and additional director general (ADG) of state's special task force (STF) and sought explanation over FIR against governor.
1x1 polls
They have been asked to submit their replies before March 25.
During preliminary hearing, counsels for Yadav informed the court that he himself had come forward and offered to appear for any interrogation by probe agency. Bench has asked STF to ensure they don't use any strong-arm method while questioning him.
Yadav, who was camping in Delhi last week returned to Bhopal after several failed attempts to meet President Pranab Mukherjee. He later moved a writ petition in MP high court last Thursday seeking to quash FIR registered against him on February 24 for his alleged role in MPPEB scam.
Citing relevant sections of the Constitution, Yadav claimed he enjoys immunity from criminal proceedings in any court during his term of office.
FIR against governor was filed after one of the accused named him. Yadav, allegedly recommended names of five candidates for recruitment as forest guards to top officials of MPPEB, body that conducted examination.
Senior advocates Ram Jethmalani, A M Trivedi, Mahendra Pateriya and Ashish Trivedi argued on behalf of governor, while Ravish Agrawal, advocate general of MP and P K Kaurav, additional advocate general were counsels for state government.
HC ruled "Considering the nature of issues raised in this petition and which are touching upon interpretation of Article 361 of the Constitution of India, besides issuing notice to the respondents No 1 and 3, we additionally propose to issue notice to the learned Attorney General of India. Notice be served on the Attorney General by the Registry by e-mail/fax along with the soft copy of the paper book forthwith."
End of Article
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA