According to the prosecution, the accused, in conspiracy with each other, abused their official position and obtained pecuniary advantages for AAP workers, who were appointed to different DCW posts without following due process. New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to interfere with a Delhi High Court order which stayed trial court proceedings against DCW chairperson Swati Maliwal in a criminal case of allegedly abusing her official position to appoint people associated with the AAP to different posts in the women's rights body.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and J K Maheshwari asked the high court to decide the case expeditiously. The high court on March 10 had stayed the trial court proceedings against Ms Maliwal and sought a status report from the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) on her petition challenging the trial court order framing charges under the anti-corruption law. The high court had observed the essential ingredient of receiving any pecuniary gain was not present in the matter. On December 8, 2022, the trial court had ordered framing of charges against Ms Maliwal and three others under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act, including Section 13(1)(d) (criminal misconduct by a public servant). The case was lodged by the Anti-Corruption Bureau on a complaint by former DCW chairperson and BJP MLA Barkha Shukla Singh. According to the prosecution, the accused, in conspiracy with each other, abused their official position and obtained pecuniary advantages for AAP workers, who were appointed to different DCW posts without following due process. The appointments were made in contravention of procedures, rules, regulations, and without even advertising for the posts in violation of General Finance Rules (GFR) and other guidelines, and that money was disbursed to various such persons towards remuneration/salary/honorarium, it has said. The prosecution has claimed that 90 appointments were made in the DCW between August 6, 2015 and August 1, 2016. Out of these, 71 people were appointed on a contractual basis and 16 for 'Dial 181' distress helpline. No record about the remaining three appointees could be found, it has said. At the time of framing of charges, the trial court had said the perusal of minutes of the meetings held on various dates by the DCW, to which all four accused were signatories, were "enough to prima facie point to a strong suspicion that the appointments in question were made by the accused persons in agreement with each other".