<p>The Supreme Court has agreed to reconsider its October, 2019 judgement that allowed an advocate to pursue his complaint before a trial court against former Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis for not disclosing all criminal cases in his nomination papers in 2014.</p>.<p>In a relief to Fadnavis, a bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose ordered to post the matter in open court on his plea for oral hearing.</p>.<p>This order was passed on January 23. A review petition is considered in chambers of judges in absence of the counsel. It was posted in open court hearing after a primary view was taken to reconsider the judgement.</p>.<p>The top court had, on October 1, 2019, set aside the Bombay High Court's order May 3, 2018 rejecting a petition by advocate Satish Uke plea for action against Fadnavis.</p>.<p>"Since the High Court and trial court interdicted the complaint, we unhesitatingly arrive at the conclusion that the same deserved to be set aside," the bench had said.</p>.<p>The petitioner, represented by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, had contended that Fadnavis had filed affidavit in Form 26 on September 26, 2014 in which he concealed two pending criminal cases in which the court had already taken cognisance. The concealment of information amounted to an offence under Section 125A of the Representation of People Act, 1951.</p>.<p>The matter related Fadnavis's nomination papers filed for election as an MLA from south west Nagpur constituency in 2014.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court has agreed to reconsider its October, 2019 judgement that allowed an advocate to pursue his complaint before a trial court against former Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis for not disclosing all criminal cases in his nomination papers in 2014.</p>.<p>In a relief to Fadnavis, a bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose ordered to post the matter in open court on his plea for oral hearing.</p>.<p>This order was passed on January 23. A review petition is considered in chambers of judges in absence of the counsel. It was posted in open court hearing after a primary view was taken to reconsider the judgement.</p>.<p>The top court had, on October 1, 2019, set aside the Bombay High Court's order May 3, 2018 rejecting a petition by advocate Satish Uke plea for action against Fadnavis.</p>.<p>"Since the High Court and trial court interdicted the complaint, we unhesitatingly arrive at the conclusion that the same deserved to be set aside," the bench had said.</p>.<p>The petitioner, represented by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, had contended that Fadnavis had filed affidavit in Form 26 on September 26, 2014 in which he concealed two pending criminal cases in which the court had already taken cognisance. The concealment of information amounted to an offence under Section 125A of the Representation of People Act, 1951.</p>.<p>The matter related Fadnavis's nomination papers filed for election as an MLA from south west Nagpur constituency in 2014.</p>
