The Supreme Court Tuesday pulled up Delhi BJP chief Manoj Tiwari saying being an MP does not give him the liberty to take law into own hands and offered to make him a "sealing officer" over his claim there are 1,000 illegal structures in the capital which deserve to be sealed.
Tiwari was taken to task for allegedly casting aspersions on the apex court committee which is supervising the sealing of illegal structures in Delhi.
Tiwari was present in the court in pursuance to the contempt notice issued to him for allegedly breaking the seal of a premises which was being run in violation of the Delhi Master Plan.
Expressing anguish at his statement, a bench headed by Justice Madan B Lokur asked the BJP leader to explain his claims made to a news channel relating to the Delhi sealing matter.
"Mr Tiwari, in your CD, you say there are one thousand places which deserve to be sealed. Give us a list of these places. We will make you the sealing officer," said the bench also comprising Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Deepak Gupta.
It also directed him to file an affidavit within a week explaining why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him.
Also Read
Tiwari, who is an MP from northeast Delhi constituency, had said that the apex court-appointed monitoring committee was not sealing thousands of illegal structures.
An FIR was lodged against him by the East Delhi Municipal Corporation for allegedly breaking the seal of one premises in Gokalpuri area in north-east Delhi.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the BJP leader, contended no seal was broken by Tiwari, who, being an MP, had never disrupted the sealing process.
Singh also alleged that the "monitoring committee was seeking publicity using your Lordships' forum and the property in question had nothing to do with sealing order."
In the report, the committee has urged the court to "pass stringent directions including initiation of contempt proceedings against Mr Manoj Tiwari for seal tampering so that sealing operations may continue uninterrupted as per directions of this court."
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content