Back
Seeks DGP's Explanation Over Deputy CM's Son Not Named in Land Case
In a significant , the has directed the and the Investigating Officer to personally file replies explaining why Parth Pawar—son of Deputy Chief Minister Sunetra Pawar and a Rajya Sabha MP—was not named as an accused in a government land deal case, while his co-director was charged. The direction came during the hearing of an filed by Pune Tehsildar Suryakant Gulabrao Yewale.
A Question of Selective Investigation
The case revolves around the purchase of 40 acres of government-owned land in Pune's Mundhwa area by . The company, according to court records, had only two directors: Digvijay Patil and Parth Pawar. While Patil has been in the probe, Pawar has not—a disparity that Justice Madhav J. Jamdar found troubling.
During the hearing on , , representing the applicant Tehsildar, submitted that his client had no involvement in the crime. , however, argued that Yewale was indeed involved. It was then that the court noted the uneven treatment of the two directors.
Court's Key Observation
The judge recorded in the order:
"It is submitted that although said Digvijay Patil has been made Accused, said Parth Pawar has not been made an Accused as he is very highly influential and the son of the Deputy Chief Minister of the State of Maharashtra."
Based on this submission, the court decided to seek an explanation from the top police brass.
"In view of the above, the Director General of Police as also the Investigating Officer to file replies,"
Justice Jamdar ordered. The state's counsel assured the court that such affidavits would be filed within two weeks.
Interim Protection Continued
The court adjourned the matter to , and directed that it be shown fairly high on the board. In the meantime, the granted earlier to the applicant—Suryakant Yewale—will remain in force.
The case highlights concerns about in high-stakes land transactions involving politically connected individuals. The DGP's forthcoming will likely reveal the investigative agency's reasons for omitting Pawar from the list of accused, potentially reshaping the trajectory of the case.
Legal Context and Implications
While the present proceeding is limited to an , the court's query into the investigation's scope signals judicial scrutiny of potential favoritism. The outcome of the September 28 hearing may set a precedent regarding accountability in cases involving influential persons.
The article is based on the order passed by Justice Madhav J. Jamdar in .
