The Supreme Court on Monday refused to give urgent hearing to former Andhra Pradesh Governor N D Tiwari, who is seeking to stay the proceedings in Delhi high court, on a paternity suit filed against him by a man claiming to be his biological son.
A bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan refused to pass any order when the matter was mentioned before it by Tiwari's counsel.
The 84-year old Congress veteran had to resign from the post of Andhra Pradesh governor after he was allegedly shown in a compromising position with three women in a sting operation by a TV channel in December last year.
He approached the apex court against the high court decision of adjudicating the suit.
Rohit Shekhar, grandson of a former Union minister, had filed the suit, claiming he was born out of a relationship between his mother Ujjwala Sharma and Tiwari, a charge denied by the Congress leader.
In the last hearing on April 7, the high court, which hinted that the politician might have to undergo a DNA test to nullify the allegations in the paternity row, also sought a 'specific' response on each of the over 100 photographs, in which Tiwari is seen with Shekhar and his mother on various occasions since his birth.
Giving the Congress leader a deadline of four weeks to file a response, the court said Tiwari will have to personally appear before it in case he fails to furnish a written reply.
"The controversy can be settled only by examining the photographs and DNA test. If you (Tiwari) do not explain the photographs, then the court would examine you in person," Justice J R Midha had observed, adding, "If you reply about the photograph, then half of the controversy would be cleared.
"He is directed to file specific responses to each photograph and also on the application seeking his DNA test. If it is not filed within four weeks, then he shall have to be present in the court," he had said.
Earlier, the high court had dismissed the plea of Tiwari, who sought quashing of the petition, on the ground that it was filed 31 years after the petitioner was born, in order to malign his character.
"Human relation cannot be treated in the same manner as commercial or civil transactions. An infidelity by a spouse is condoned by a subsequent conjugation," the court had said.
"We think that in the vicissitude of personal relations that is an untenable position to adopt. The court cannot delve into the mind of the plaintiff (Shekhar) in order to ascertain the time at which he felt that he had no alternative but to go to the extreme of moving the court, which is always a point of no return," the court had said.
