Petitioners Shashank Shekhar Jha and journalist Savio Rodrigues wanted an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in the agreement. Senior Councillor Mahesh Jethmalani, who represented the petitioners, argued that the agreement should be motivated by unclear motives and that it should be made public. The plea claimed that Congress signed the agreement by governing the country as part of a coalition “although it had a hostile relationship with China. and concealed the facts and details of the agreement with the country.” The agreement was signed on behalf of the Congress by its leader Rahul Gandhi in the presence of party chairwoman Sonia Gandhi and signed by Xi Jinping, then vice president, and a few other leaders for China, it was said. The petitioners argued that they had asked Congress to make public the details of the agreement, but it did not keep any courage, reflecting the malafide intent of the big old party. “You say that a political party has reached an agreement with China! In our experience, we have not heard a political party make a deal with another country,” Judge S A Bobde said, while the petition by lawyer Shashank Shekhar Jha and journalist Savio Rodrigues came to the hearing. #Breaking | MASSIVE NOW THE EFFECTS OF NEWSBREAK. The Supreme Court questions the “MoU” of the Chinese Congress and says, “How can a political party sign a MoU with China?” Times NOW`s Harish with details. Harish V Nair of pic.twitter.com/UgdbdvIM9C Times Now said that although the Supreme Court rejected the argument and asked the petitioners to transfer the Supreme Court, The Supreme Justice of India SA Bobde, before whom the case was brought, said that the problem was very serious and that, in our limited experience, we have not heard that a political party has reached an agreement with a foreign country. The petitioners argued that, although India has hostile relations with China, the INC signed an agreement when it led the coalition government. “We find that there is something that seems unheard of and absurd in the law.
You say that China has an agreement with a political party and not with the government. How can a political party make a deal with China,” Justice Chief SA Bobde said at the hearing. The Supreme Court allowed the petitioners to “withdraw the petition with the freedom to address the Supreme Court” at the hearing, which took place by videoconference. The argument was rejected by the bank. As part of the dispute between India and China over the Actual Line of Control (LAC), a PIL has been filed with the Supreme Court to investigate the NIA inquiry into the 2008 agreement reached between the Indian National Congress and the Chinese Communist Party. The petitioner`s lawyer, Mahesh Jethmalani, argued that the agreement should be made public because there were “unclear motives” and the problem posed national security. However, he withdrew the case when the Supreme Court asked why it was not going to the Supreme Court. The CJI told Chief Lawyer Mahesh Jethmalani, who appeared for the petitioners: “We will allow you to withdraw it. But we have to tell you that we want you to look at dropouts… Asked why they didn`t go to the Supreme Court, Jethmalani said the problem was serious and focused on offenses related to the Illegal Activities (Prevention) Act. . . .