[Two things need be noted here.One, the Supreme Court has expressed its displeasure in no uncertain terms as regards the the purported "leakage", by the Times of India group publications viz. the ToI and ET, of the confidential SIT report submitted to the SC allegedly charging Teesta Setalvad of spicing up the case of state-sponsored pogrom in Gujarat in Feb.-March 2002.Two, the SIT has asserted that its report does not contain any such findings as reported.The report, as it appears, is a part of the ToI's campaign, albeit in a subtle manner, in favour of the BJP in the ongoing 15th Lok Sabha elections. A serious transgression of journalistic ethics.]I.POST-GODHRA RIOTS CASES
SIT report leak breach of trust: SC
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday deplored the leakage of the "confidential" SIT probe report to the media, terming it as betrayal of trust and said the report also talked of how it attempted to correct the earlier shoddy probes into the post-Godhra riot cases.
The court said copies of the SIT report were given to get suggestions from amicus curiae Harish Salve and the Gujarat government. When both denied having leaked it, a bench said: "If anyone has given a copy of the report, then it means he has betrayed the trust of the court. We do not approve of it and deplore it in no uncertain terms."
Senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for some riot victims, raised the issue of excerpts of the SIT report appearing in The Times of India. The bench said: "If the report said certain things, it also referred to hundreds of new accused being added to the cases."
The court was indicating that the SIT report was also critical of the manner in which the Gujarat police had probed the post-Godhra riot cases, leaving out many accused from the chargesheet. When Jaising said "we have been defamed", the bench said: "It is a grossly irresponsible act. Why should you be defamed? Whoever has done it, does not understand the SIT report. It is not akin to that submitted under Section 173 of CrPC (the chargesheet). This does not have any evidentiary value."
The bench also discussed with Salve, Gujarat counsel Mukul Rohtagi and Jaising the mechanism to be put in place to fast-track trial of the 10 key post-Godhra riot cases, selection of trial judges and public prosecutors and keeping the SIT headed by ex-CBI director R K Raghavan functional till the conclusion of the trials.
Salve's prime concern was to give foolproof protection to witnesses by the CRPF or the central force personnel and suggested that some of them be relocated outside Gujarat. Additional solicitor general Gopal Subramaniam and Gujarat's counsel Mukul Rohtagi agreed.
However, Rohatgi opposed Jaising's suggestion that the poor witnesses should be paid subsistence allowance by the government during the pendency of the trial. The bench, too, disapproved of her suggestion. "...to give subsistence money to them is quite another (thing). It would give an opportunity to the accused to allege that the prosecution paid money to the witnesses to support its case," it said. TNN
22 accused acquitted
Twenty-two persons accused in a post-Godhra riot case were acquitted by a court in Gujarat's Banaskantha due to lack of evidence. Additional sessions judge of Sabarkanta fast-track court acquitted the 22 accused of rioting, arsoning and damaging properties of the minority community. AGENCIES
II.SC anguished over leak of SIT report to media
Express News Service Posted: Apr 22, 2009 at 2341 hrsNew Delhi Apex court reserves order on plea to transfer 2002 riot cases outside GujaratThe Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its decision on the bunch of petitions filed in 2003 by the National Human Rights Commission besides others, which sought the transfer of trials of the 2002 post-Godhra riots outside Gujarat and an independent inquiry into some of the major riot cases.
The special bench headed by Justice Arijit Pasayat, after hearing all the parties concerned — the amicus curiae, Gujarat government, Centre and few individual petitioners apart from the NHRC — said, "We will close the case for orders."
The bench, while reserving its decision, admonished a section of the media for carrying contents from the confidential report of the Special Investigation Team (SIT). Advocate Indira Jaisingh complained that when the NHRC and victims were denied access to the SIT report since it was placed before the court in a sealed cover, how could certain selective extracts be carried by a section of the media.
Justice Pasayat said he felt "anguished and pained" about the leaking of the sealed report, which was ordered to be given only to the amicus, senior advocate Harish Salve and the Gujarat government. "We do not approve of such an act," observed the bench, also comprising justices P Sathasivam and Aftab Alam. Justice Pasayat termed it as "grossly irresponsible" on the part of those who leaked the contents to the media. He observed that anybody who leaked the report has betrayed the trust of the court.
Earlier, Salve submitted a few suggestions as sought by the court in the previous hearing, to set up fast-track courts to conduct the trial, which has been stayed since 2003. The SIT has suggested that six fast-track courts should be established for 10 major riot cases, but the court indicated it will leave it to the Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court "to decide depending upon the number of accused and witnesses". The court also reposed trust on the CJ of the Gujarat High Court to appoint judicial officers to conduct those trials.
For appointment of public prosecutors, the bench clearly indicated that they will be appointed "in consultation with the SIT", besides ensuring that the SIT "would continue to function" even when the trials commence. The court also indicated that the SIT may be made responsible to apprise the apex court periodically, "in case anything is deficient" during the trials.
Naroda gam, naroda patiya
Kodnani instigated worst-ever riot
THE Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) has said that Gujarat witnessed one of the most gruesome massacres – the Naroda Patiya massacre of 2002 riots – on the instigation of BJP leader and former minister Dr Maya Kodnani. The statement was made by the SIT in its affidavit opposing the bail application of Dr Kodnani in connection with the Naroda Patiya case.
Dr Kodnani is facing charges of instigating communal riots in the Naroda Gam and Naroda Patiya localities of Naroda area in Ahmedabad on February 28, 2002. A number of witnesses in the two cases have said they had seen Dr Kodnani at the rioting scene distributing weapons among rioters. A female witness has even stated that she had seen Dr Kodnani firing from a pistol-like weapon.
Ninety-five people were killed and 38 were injured in the Naroda Patiya massacre. Three persons went missing then, who have now been declared dead.
Dr Kodnani had applied for regular bail in the court of Sessions Judge A K Aswani in the Naroda Gam and the Naroda Patiya massacres. The hearing on Dr Kodnani's bail application in the Naroda Patiya case has been kept for April 28. The Gujarat High Court had earlier cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to Dr Kodnani by the Sessions Court. The SIT has arrested 67 people in the Naroda Patiya case so far of which 63 have been charge sheeted.III.Nagendar Sharma, Hindustan TimesNew Delhi, April 22, 2009First Published: 02:27 IST(22/4/2009)Last Updated: 02:30 IST(22/4/2009)The Special Investigation Team (SIT), probing major cases of 2002 anti-Muslim Gujarat riots on Tuesday slammed reports that riots witnesses were tutored to give false evidence for exaggeration of the situation, by activists and organisations helping the victims.
The SIT rebuttal followed the alleged leak of its report recently, which was submitted to the Supreme Court in March. "The findings of the report have concentrated on the investigations into the cases and it was not our business to indulge in the blame game and level allegations," a senior SIT official said.
The SIT response to the reported leak came on a day, when the Supreme Court termed the leak as a "betrayal of the faith reposed in those to whom the report was allowed access".
A news story in an English daily last week claimed access to the confidential SIT report, and allegedly quoted from it, that the "rights activists cooked up macabre tales of wanton killings". It further stated 22 witnesses who had "submitted identical affidavits relating to riots were found tutored."
Asked about the leaked contents of the report, the SIT chief, R. K. Raghavan told Hindustan Times that he could not confirm whether the leaked contents were true.
"I am answerable only to the Supreme Court. The alleged reported leaks appear to be inspired by dubious motives. I cannot confirm such claims. The act is highly condemnable," Raghavan said.
Raghavan, a former CBI chief, said the priority for the SIT, which was formed on the orders of the Supreme Court in March last year, now was "to ensure a free, fair and speedy trials of the riots cases investigated by the team."
The SIT sources said the alleged leaks appear to have been based on statements of state police officials and "cannot be termed as findings of the report."
The secret contents of the SIT report, on the basis of which BJP leader and former Gujarat minister Maya Kodnani was arrested, have been a topic of high speculation.
The SIT has probed one of the worst riots in the country in recent years, the official toll for which now has been revised to 1180.
__._,_.___Community email addresses:
Post message: Bahujan@onelist.com
Subscribe: Bahujan-subscribe@onelist.com
Unsubscribe: Bahujan-unsubscribe@onelist.com
List owner: Bahujan-owner@onelist.com
Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.onelist.com/community/Bahujan![Yahoo! Groups]()
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe.![]()
__,_._,___
Memories of Another day
While my Parents Pulin babu and Basanti devi were living
Monday, April 27, 2009
Re: [Bahujan-forum] Post-Godhra Pogrom: Teesta Setalvad, the Lies of ToI, SIT and Supreme Court
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:20 AM, Sukla Sen <sukla.sen@gmail.com> wrote:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment