Court reserves order on AAP MLA Bhavna Gaur’s plea

A court here on Monday reserved order on the plea of AAP legislator Bhavna Gaur seeking discharge in a case in which she has been accused of misrepresenting facts about her academic background.

Metropolitan Magistrate Pankaj Sharma fixed January 30 to deliver its order on the plea of Gaur who represents Palam constituency in the Delhi assembly.

The court was hearing a complaint filed by lawyer Samarendra Nath Verma against the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA.

Verma complained that Gaur had furnished different information about her educational qualifications in two affidavits she filed with the election commission in 2013 and 2015.

According to the complaint, Gaur in 2013 claimed to have passed the Class 12 exam, but in her 2015 affidavit she described herself as a Delhi University graduate who also earned a B.Ed. (Bachelor of Education) degree from Maharshi Dayanand University in Haryana’s Rohtak.

The complainant sought action against Gaur for offences under the Representation of the People Act.

Defence counsel Madan Lal on Monday said that Gaur understood the meaning of ‘oblique’ as ‘or’ and therefore in her first election declaration she submitted her highest school education as “12th passed”.

Gaur had not submitted any false statement in any the two affidavits filed with the election commission, pleaded the defence counsel.

Counsel Madan Lal told the court that in the first affidavit which she filed in the 2013 assembly election, she understood the meaning of highest educational qualification as the highest school qualification because ‘oblique’ was put after that and therefore she submitted her highest educational qualification as ’12th CBSE in 1998′.

“However, in the subsequent election she submitted certificates of her complete educational qualification and also furnished information in column 11 as BA, B.Ed. which was her highest educational qualification,” counsel Madan Lal told the court.

Opposing the defence counsel’s plea, the complainant’s counsel told the court that arguments of the accused were intended to obfuscate the proceedings.