In her plea, Andrabi has said that the Special Judge at the Patiala House Courts, while sitting in appeal, has not decided the illegalities of the order challenged, but has given his own opinion about why the house should have been seized.
She added that the Special Judge has wrongly concluded that because she gave an interview in her house, it can be treated as her office.
The act of giving an interview does not come under the ambit of terrorist activity, the plea stated.
“That the interpretation of the Special Judge sitting in appeal that giving an interview in the house would tantamount to an act of terrorism is completely devoid of merit because it was not the Appellant who had called the media persons at her home to take the interview but rather it was the media persons who had gone to her home to take the interviews… So it cannot be said that the appellant was using her house to spread terrorism,” the plea said.
Source: Barandbench
