IRCTC Scam: Delhi HC issues notice in disproportionate assets case, directs trial court to reschedule

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has issued a notice and directed the trial court to set a new date for proceedings in a petition filed by the father of a public servant accused in the disproportionate assets (DA) case related to the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) scam.
The accused, Ajay Garg, served as an Assistant Programmer in the CBI from September 6, 2011, to December 26, 2017. He is alleged to have accumulated assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, with accusations that he acquired significant assets through corrupt and illegal means, abusing his official position.
Jagdish Prasad Garg, Ajay's father, is alleged to have played a key role in acquiring these disproportionate assets, and the CBI has used intercepted calls to implicate both him and his son in the crime.
Advocate Ayush Jindal, representing Jagdish Prasad Garg, argued that his client had been falsely implicated, primarily based on intercepted calls relied upon by the CBI. Jindal informed the court that Garg had requested the trial court to provide the entire record of the Review Committee's proceedings, as mandated under Rule 419A(2) of the Telegraph (Amendment) Rules, 2007.
This included copies of the Minutes of the Review Committee's proceedings and certified copies of the orders passed by the committee under Rule 419A(17) of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. However, the trial court had dismissed his application, despite a ruling by the Delhi High Court in the Jatinder Pal Singh case.
Jindal further argued that the entire record of the Review Committee's proceedings should be made available to Garg to ensure the legality of the intercepted calls. He contended that Rule 419A(2) of the Telegraph (Amendment) Rules, 2007 requires the competent authority to review interception orders and make the records available to those under surveillance to ensure compliance with the legal framework. Without adhering to the procedure outlined in the Telegraph Act, 1885 and the 2007 amendments, Jindal argued that the intercepted calls would be inadmissible as evidence, constituting illegal phone tapping.
Jindal emphasized that the fairness of the trial is at stake, as the liberty of Jagdish Prasad Garg is involved. If such evidence is admitted without following the prescribed legal process, it would violate his client's fundamental rights.
The Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI countered that the interception orders had already been supplied to Jagdish Prasad Garg.
After considering the submissions from both sides, Justice Vikas Mahajan of the Delhi High Court issued a notice to the CBI and directed the trial court to schedule a new date for the proceedings after the date fixed by the High Court.