Shiv Sena MP Rajan Vichare, reportedly irked over the poor quality of food, force-fed Arshad Zubair, who was fasting for Ramzan.
The Delhi High Court today dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking a direction to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and Chairman of the Rajya Sabha to disqualify 11 Shiv Sena Members of Parliament for allegedly force-feeding a fasting Muslim employee at the Maharashtra Sadan in Delhi. (
Shiv Sena MP Force-Feeds Man Who Was Fasting for Ramzan)
A bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath rejected the petition, saying the petitioner Maulana Ansar Raza has not provided sufficient evidence to show that it is a PIL.
The court also observed that the police is already investigating the matter and the Ministry of Home Affairs has also expressed its concern over the issue. (
Lok Sabha Members Write to Speaker Seeking Inquiry into Force-Feeding)
"Neither of the aggrieved parties has approached the police for registration of an FIR regarding the alleged incident," the court noted.
Earlier, Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain, appearing for the Centre, had told the court that the PIL "does not stand anywhere" as the victim had not approached the police.
While seeking dismissal of the PIL, the ASG had referred to the prayers made in the PIL seeking de-recognition of the Shiv Sena and a direction to the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman to disqualify 11 MPs of the party. (
Force-Feeding Row: Shiv Sena Defiant, Targets Maharashtra Chief Minister)
The PIL had alleged that on July 17, Shiv Sena MP Rajan Vichare reportedly got irked over the poor quality of food and force-fed Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation employee Arshad Zubair, the catering supervisor at Maharashtra Sadan. ('
Didn't Know He Was Muslim, We Attend Iftars': Sena MP Vichare Defends Himself)
Mr Zubair was fasting during the holy month of Ramzan.
"The action of the Shiv Sena MPs with the fasting Muslim supervisor was uncalled for and needed to be dealt with a strict action by party chief Udhav Thackeray," the PIL had submitted.