- News>
- Delhi
`Derogatory` remarks case: BJP`s OP Sharma, AAP`s Alka Lamba fail to settle row in court
The Delhi High Court on Thursday posted for Friday arguments in a row involving BJP legislator O.P. Sharma, accused of making derogatory remarks against the AAP`s Alka Lamba.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Thursday posted for Friday arguments in a row involving BJP legislator O.P. Sharma, accused of making derogatory remarks against the AAP's Alka Lamba.
Sharma, suspended for two sessions from the Delhi assembly, and the Aam Aadmi Party's Lamba could not reach a settlement in the court on Thursday.
After almost two hours of mediation with both leaders, Justice Manmohan Singh said a settlement doesn't seem possible and posted the matter for Friday.
The Bharatiya Janata Party leader moved the high court to challenge a Delhi assembly resolution suspending him for two sessions.
As the leaders could not reach a settlement, Sharma could not attend the special Delhi assembly session on Thursday.
On Wednesday, the judge called Sharma and Lamba to the court on Thursday "with an open mind" so that he could talk to them to help resolve the issue.
Justice Manmohan Singh spoke to them separately in his chamber for around two hours but Sharma refused to give a unilateral apology and asked the court to decide his plea against his suspension.
Said Sharma's lawyer: "We wanted a reasonable settlement but Lamba is insisting on an apology."
The Delhi assembly passed a resolution on March 31 against Sharma after an Ethics Committee recommended his expulsion for making derogatory remarks against Lamba during the winter session.
Senior advocate Sudhir Nandrajog on Wednesday said Sharma was given several chances to express regret but he refused.
In his plea, Sharma said the Ethics Committee's decision was "wrong and biased" because all its nine members were AAP members.
The proceedings were biased and conducted in a malafide manner, contrary to the principles of natural justice, to target Sharma," his petition said.
It said Sharma's explanations were neither considered nor appreciated by the Ethics Committee.