New Delhi, Feb 4 (IANS) The suspense was mounting for hundreds of media persons and lawyers who jostled for space outside the court of special CBI judge O.P. Saini since Saturday morning to hear the verdict on a plea against Home Minister P. Chidambaram.
It was only after a wait of over three hours that the doors of the courtroom at the Patiala House premises were opened for the now fidgeting crowd. And the verdict was clear: Relief for Chidambaram and surprise for the petitioner, Janata Party chief Subramanian Swamy.
With the plea concerning no less than Chidambaram, one of the most prominent faces of the United Progressive Alliance government and a former finance minister, hundreds of media persons had gathered since early morning. Would he be made a co-accused in the 2G case?
The judgment was to be out by 10 a.m. But, the doors of the courtroom remained shut. Only a confident-looking Swamy and his wife Roxane were allowed in.
However, coming out within 15 minutes, a happy-looking Swamy flashed the “V” sign indicating victory for him and spoke to the electronic media persons at the spot. He then left as the court posted the pronouncement for the afternoon.
Swamy, his wife and two associates again came to the premises around 12.30 p.m. This time, he like others, waited outside the court, facing the closed doors.
But after a half an hour wait, he was summoned inside. It took another 45 minutes for the court to finally open the doors to the restless crowd.
When Judge Saini dismissed the case on the ground that there was “no sufficient evidence” against Chidambaram, then finance minister, Swamy looked thunderstruck.
“I am surprised… but not disappointed because this is part of the game,” Swamy told reporters minutes after the order.
He soon recovered himself and announced that he would now knock the doors of the higher courts.
Meanwhile, the cameramen, who wanted a closeup of a dejected Swamy, tried to enter the premises and security men had to be called in to rein them in.
Seeing the sea of people outside the gates, mostly electronic mediapersons, many passersby stooped to hear the news firsthand.
It was not just the passers-by. Even lawyers and other petitioners who had come for their own cases were found to be avidly discussing the case involving a key union minister.
–Indo-Asian New Service
gt-akk/kbd/vd/dg
