Am sure that if Ishrat was alive today, she would have been roaming free( on bail/let off if arrested with central govt recommending her release ) and would have even figured in 26/11 charge-sheet as a active accomplice for Headley-uddin...And yet, 6-7 IPS officers have to go to prison for saving India from such a person.It becomes a crime when Gujarath Police does take some action.
Dont forget there were 2 men from JUD A.k.a L-E-T as well, absolutely no focus on them and besides the Tamang report claims that AK-47 ammunition and AK-56 ammunition is totally different and hasSachin wrote:It becomes a crime when Gujarath Police does take some action. BTW, along with Ishrat was one Javed @ Pranesh Kumar Pillai. He was a Keralite who had been in Maharashtra, who later converted to Islam married a Muslim lady and settled down. When Javed was gunned down vested interests in Kerala had tried to rake up some controversies. All that was silenced quickly when it was proved that Pranesh Kumar Pillai had another passport in his name, and a new one under the name of Javed. Many people dont carry more than one passport for the sake of convenience.sum wrote: There is only that much one can do to wake up a person pretending to be asleep.
Communal Violence Bill: A Conspiracy by NACThis is again an open attempt to colour the constitution. The intention being to empower the central government to indulge in arbitrary and politically motivated use of Art 356. The provision is in clear violation of the clarification and procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in the S.R.Bommai Vs Union of India case
This is again an open attempt to colour the constitution. The intention being to empower the central government to indulge in arbitrary and politically motivated use of Art 356. The provision is in clear violation of the clarification and procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in the S.R.Bommai Vs Union of India case
If the definitions mentioned in the article are correct, the NAC seems to be simply rubber-stamping and giving legal teeth to the moronic INC view that minority communal violence is acceptable but communal violence by the majority is not.Anabhaya wrote:Communal Violence Bill: A Conspiracy by NAC
It is an issue, but not "extra constitutional" in any way..NAC was setup through an executive order of the govt, and the Chairperson, NAC holds the rank of Cabinet Minister, therefore technically reporting to the PM..In that sense, it isnt different from any other advisory body setup by the govt..The issue really is with the fact that Sonia Gandhi is the Chairperson, and hence all "advice" from the NAC will have extra political weight...From a constituional perspective, it is a far better scenario than what we have often had - Bal Thakrey remote controlling Mah govt, Laloo controlling Bihar govt from jail, or indeed shady RSS characters influencing policy from Jhandewalan..Here, clear line of responsibility goes to the PM...And officially mandated...sum wrote:^^ Have still not been able to wrap my head around this NAC concept!! How is this unelected body being so much legitimacy by DDM and not being questioned since it is filled with known leftists/shady characters?
Clear line of responsibility goes to PM?! Surely you are aware that even the otherwise dorkish DDM has trouble believing that statement !!somnath wrote:Here, clear line of responsibility goes to the PM...And officially mandated...
Is this communal violence bill draft an example of their 'intellectual' quality? Or is it cut from the same cloth as the first family's 'elite' thinking skills ?India is short of intellectual think tanks, a la Heritage or Brookings or the lot in the US...NAC structurally can be gret in that avatar..Buit the politics around it messes up the script...
sum wrote:^^ Have still not been able to wrap my head around this NAC concept!! How is this unelected body being so much legitimacy by DDM and not being questioned since it is filled with known leftists/shady characters?
So, tomorrow if NDA comes to power and appoints a super-committee comprising well-educated/qualified but RSS members and GoI takes recommendations from them, will the same DDM keep quiet and faithfully print out and cheer on whatever they recommend or will it hark on "saffronisation of India"/"extra-constitutional illegal committee" etc?
Its illegal to have more than one passport, either in same name or different names, except as duplicate in some situations. Likewise PAN cards, though not yet treated with similar harsh treatment. but would be done in due course after UID is finished.Sachin wrote:Many people dont carry more than one passport for the sake of convenience.
Which is precisely why the media is not the right source for anything serious beyond information..Arjun wrote:Clear line of responsibility goes to PM?! Surely you are aware that even the otherwise dorkish DDM has trouble believing that statement
That draft has issues, though one must say that the draft in the Parliament doesnt have the same issues, and the latter is what finally matters...Arjun wrote:Is this communal violence bill draft an example of their 'intellectual' quality? Or is it cut from the same cloth as the first family's 'elite' thinking skills
Absolutely, its not much different in its role from the Planning Comission...Therefore, it does not set a precedence for RSS/Laloo-type shenanigans at all...chaanakya wrote:Well you have precedence now. btw Planning Commission is no different
SO Am i reading this right, it is not a "PREVENTION" of Cummunal Violence Bill right now but right now is "Communal" violence BillArjun wrote:If the definitions mentioned in the article are correct, the NAC seems to be simply rubber-stamping and giving legal teeth to the moronic INC view that minority communal violence is acceptable but communal violence by the majority is not.Anabhaya wrote:Communal Violence Bill: A Conspiracy by NAC
Any reason why you used "shady" adjective only to RSS and not other examples? Could you please edit it out?somnath wrote: It is an issue, but not "extra constitutional" in any way..NAC was setup through an executive order of the govt, and the Chairperson, NAC holds the rank of Cabinet Minister, therefore technically reporting to the PM..In that sense, it isnt different from any other advisory body setup by the govt..The issue really is with the fact that Sonia Gandhi is the Chairperson, and hence all "advice" from the NAC will have extra political weight...From a constituional perspective, it is a far better scenario than what we have often had - Bal Thakrey remote controlling Mah govt, Laloo controlling Bihar govt from jail, or indeedshadyRSS characters influencing policy from Jhandewalan..Here, clear line of responsibility goes to the PM...And officially mandated...
Any news link which talks about this? So now that the President have rejected the mercy petition, I guess nothing stops the execution being carried out. Does any one know what are the procedures which would now be set in motion? I have heard of court issuing a "black warrant" which sets the date, time and place of execution. But do not know if the SC does this, or it gets routed to the jurisdictional magistrate court for action.chaanakya wrote:So now we have one person walking to Gallows. Bhullar's(KLF) Mercy plea rejected. Convicted for terror plot against Bitta and Saini. .
Fool, RSS waalas are Brahmins and walk in the shade, that is why they have fair skin, they are called shady just like the English are limeys. Lal Jhanda waalas on the other hand toil hard under the burning sun and are 400% geared towards uplifting the downtrodden. Accept the above as fact and edit your post asking someone else to edit.RamaY wrote:Any reason why you used "shady" adjective only to RSS and not other examples? Could you please edit it out?somnath wrote: It is an issue, but not "extra constitutional" in any way..NAC was setup through an executive order of the govt, and the Chairperson, NAC holds the rank of Cabinet Minister, therefore technically reporting to the PM..In that sense, it isnt different from any other advisory body setup by the govt..The issue really is with the fact that Sonia Gandhi is the Chairperson, and hence all "advice" from the NAC will have extra political weight...From a constituional perspective, it is a far better scenario than what we have often had - Bal Thakrey remote controlling Mah govt, Laloo controlling Bihar govt from jail, or indeedshadyRSS characters influencing policy from Jhandewalan..Here, clear line of responsibility goes to the PM...And officially mandated...
Here its is. Breaking news. Order for rejection was signed around 7-8 PM.Sachin wrote:Any news link which talks about this? So now that the President have rejected the mercy petition, I guess nothing stops the execution being carried out. Does any one know what are the procedures which would now be set in motion? I have heard of court issuing a "black warrant" which sets the date, time and place of execution. But do not know if the SC does this, or it gets routed to the jurisdictional magistrate court for action.chaanakya wrote:So now we have one person walking to Gallows. Bhullar's(KLF) Mercy plea rejected. Convicted for terror plot against Bitta and Saini. .
I remember reading in an old magazine, the procedure and preperation done for an execution. It was written by a retired Jail Superindent who had witnessed many executions. Not a very pleasent thing, I must say.
BTW, the hang-man/executioner Mammu Jallad who wanted to execute Kasab has passed away (nearly a week back).
BJP leader Arun Jaitley argues that it is a dangerous and discriminatory bill which presumes that the majority community is always to blame for communal violence
Simply because unlike Laloo or Thackrey, the "remote controller" in RSS was not an identifiable entity -it was always an anonymous, ubiquitous Ram Lal, who remained in the "shade", while influencing executive decisions - appointment of cabinet ministers, petrol pump allotments...RamaY wrote:Any reason why you used "shady" adjective only to RSS and not other examples?
RamaY wrote:Any reason why you used "shady" adjective only to RSS and not other examples? Could you please edit it out?somnath wrote: It is an issue, but not "extra constitutional" in any way..NAC was setup through an executive order of the govt, and the Chairperson, NAC holds the rank of Cabinet Minister, therefore technically reporting to the PM..In that sense, it isnt different from any other advisory body setup by the govt..The issue really is with the fact that Sonia Gandhi is the Chairperson, and hence all "advice" from the NAC will have extra political weight...From a constituional perspective, it is a far better scenario than what we have often had - Bal Thakrey remote controlling Mah govt, Laloo controlling Bihar govt from jail, or indeedshadyRSS characters influencing policy from Jhandewalan..Here, clear line of responsibility goes to the PM...And officially mandated...
I am not talking about the 'technicality' that any party can introduce if it wants to - I am referring to the on-the-ground spirit of the relationship that finally determines who really reports to whom...The NAC would have been acceptable if it had been constituted on the wishes of the PM and not forced upon him - the technicality that you have referred to is very obviously just a technicality that does not reflect the spirit of the relationship.somnath wrote:Just go and refer to the "primary" doc...
http://nac.nic.in/images/NACMeetingNotice.pdf
NAC has been set up by an executive order, and NAC chairperson holds the rank of cabinet minister..Ergo, technically, she reports to the PM...fundamentally, this is one crucial difference between NAC and the other structures we have seen (Laloo, Thakrey, RSS) - its a legally mandated office...Which means that directions or recos or advice given by the NAC cannot be brushed under as a "private citizen's view", if/when push comes to shove...Being an office under the President, they are held accountable for what they say and do...Unlike the other cases, where even written directions from the principals to the nominal constitutional authorities can be described away as a private citizen's view, at least as prima facie..
This bill piloted by the NAC and Sonia is historic. As far as I can remember, this is for the first time that an explicitly communally-discriminatory bill is in the process of being piloted by any major political party - something that even the BJP did not do while in power. Proves that in addition to deeply embarassing the country with its retrograde feudalistic & dynastic roots - the INC is now openly taking on the mantle of THE most dangerous communally divisive party to guard against in the country.That draft has issues, though one must say that the draft in the Parliament doesnt have the same issues, and the latter is what finally matters...
I guess characters like Barkha Dutt etc who were trying to influence cabinet selection in UPA-II can be called shady too then?? Wonder how many such shady characters exist. If not for leaked radia tapes, we wouldn't have heard about these either!somnath wrote:Simply because unlike Laloo or Thackrey, the "remote controller" in RSS was not an identifiable entity -it was always an anonymous, ubiquitous Ram Lal, who remained in the "shade", while influencing executive decisions - appointment of cabinet ministers, petrol pump allotments...RamaY wrote:Any reason why you used "shady" adjective only to RSS and not other examples?
Which is true, and that is precisely why I said that Sonia Gandhi as te Chairperson of the body makes its optics extremely messy and incongruent..Which is anyway the problem with the curent dispensation, of SG NOT being the PM..the question was whether NAC is "extra constitutional" or not - thats all..Arjun wrote:I had referred in my previous post to the fact that even INC supporters acknowledge that MMS is just a facade for the real power
the 'techicality" matters a great deal, in terms of enforcing accountability for acts, especially if they degenrate into ommissions and commissions...An office held at the pleasure of the President lays down clear rules of accountability..So if the NAC suggests a bunch of executive decisions to the PM which the latter agrees to, should they go wrong, the NAC will be as much in the legal "dock" as the PM...Which is why you have the grandees of the NAC constantly at pains to justify its various policy interventions, like NREGS and Right to Food Act and everythign else..Arjun wrote:If this is to be an argument about technicalities and not the spirit of the relationship - the BJP can claim that the 'advice' from the RSS was not channeled through a 'private citizen' but through ABV himself who was also the PM
It is obnoxious in parts..But the key is this, NAC now cannot excape public scrutiny of its action (suggesting this draft) - which is already happening - it is a draft transparently put up on the website, from a part of the govt - so they have to come out and defend their position...But above all, the govt, if it wants to take this forward, will need to present the bill in Parliament, and get is approved..Its not an executive action that can be done without oversight...This bill piloted by the NAC and Sonia is historic
There are many, half the journalistic community does exactly what BD was caught doing - Delhi is full of such shady characters..About BD herself, anyone a little bit "in the know" in Delhi knows facts that are salacious and downright disgusting - I wont relate unsubstantiated rumours, but she isnt the only one...putnanja wrote: I guess characters like Barkha Dutt etc who were trying to influence cabinet selection in UPA-II can be called shady too then?? Wonder how many such shady characters exist. If not for leaked radia tapes, we wouldn't have heard about these either!
Err, not quite.the 'techicality" matters a great deal, in terms of enforcing accountability for acts, especially if they degenrate into ommissions and commissions...An office held at the pleasure of the President lays down clear rules of accountability..So if the NAC suggests a bunch of executive decisions to the PM which the latter agrees to, should they go wrong, the NAC will be as much in the legal "dock" as the PM...Which is why you have the grandees of the NAC constantly at pains to justify its various policy interventions, like NREGS and Right to Food Act and everythign else..
..
the RSS frequently intervened into executive action, for which there is no Parliamentary oversight, unlike NAC which concerns itself only with legislative policy-making, for which the ultimate arbiter is the Parliament...
Depends on the POV. The NAC is just as constitutional or unconstitutional as the RSS-ABV combo. Just as there is nothing in the constitutition preventing a NAC, there is nothing in the constitution against the RSS-ABV arrangement.somnath wrote: structurally, the simple point is NAC isnt unconstituional, and cannot be comapred to RSS-ABV, Thackrey-SS, Laloo-RJD govt...
See Boss why Minority defination at all, because Minority is a very loose term. A person from One community might be majority in the State by might be a minority in his street, Does that mean his rights can be violated??vera_k wrote:Anyway, my grouse against the Communal Violence bill is that caste based minorities are not afforded protection.
you are confusing executive decisions with legislative ones...Everyone is free to "draft" - question is whether Rahul Mehta's draft is accepted by anybody...But NAC is a govt think tank with political weight, obvioulsy different from Rahul Mehta..Hari Seldon wrote:The NAC is free to draft legislation as much as our very own Rahulk mehta was free to draft legislation. Heck, any amar akbar anthony can draft legislation. There is no 'parliamentary oversight' in the drafting process.
Once the bill goes to parliament and if it is passed, then all accountability rests with the parliament that passed it, not with the NAC. The famous 'buck stops here' argument. If some NAC scheme backfires and bankrupts the nation, who will hold NAC accountable
Of course, there is nothing preventing a "relationship", ABV-RSS style...Issue is enforcing accountability - did RSS take the kosh on the petrol pump scam? It was only the minister who took the sack, and faced legal proceedings..vera_k wrote:Depends on the POV. The NAC is just as constitutional or unconstitutional as the RSS-ABV combo. Just as there is nothing in the constitutition preventing a NAC, there is nothing in the constitution against the RSS-ABV arrangement
The definition of "group" in that draft is definitely eggregious..In fact, I am not sure it is constitutional either...But the way it works is this - there is a draft, it has to be presented in Parliament, almost inevitaably referred to a select committee (and in this case, the committee is headed by sushma swaraj!), and finally passed in both houses...So beyond a laboriously drafted script, there is nothing to it materially right now..Aditya_V wrote:See Boss why Minority defination at all, because Minority is a very loose term. A person from One community might be majority in the State by might be a minority in his street, Does that mean his rights can be violated??vera_k wrote:Anyway, my grouse against the Communal Violence bill is that caste based minorities are not afforded protection.
The problem is NAC members want selective application, they dont want Maoist SYmpathiers, Ulfa Sysmpathisiers, Rabble rousers in Religious Gatherings of all hues to go to Jail but only Rabble rousers who are Political Oppenents of Congress Party to go Jail.
Why not have Group Defination as referring to any section of Indian Soceity irrespective of it being Majority or Minority
somnath wrote:shadyRSS characters influencing policy from Jhandewalan..Here, clear line of responsibility goes to the PM...And officially mandated...
RamaY wrote:
Any reason why you used "shady" adjective only to RSS and not other examples? Could you please edit it out?
Mahendra wrote:
Fool, RSS waalas are Brahmins and walk in the shade, that is why they have fair skin, they are called shady just like the English are limeys. Lal Jhanda waalas on the other hand toil hard under the burning sun and are 400% geared towards uplifting the downtrodden. Accept the above as fact and edit your post asking someone else to edit.
This is like Hitler against the Jews or Pakjabis of 1947 against Hindus and Sikhs, if this Bill passes then India will be doomed, Emboldened by it Riot after riot will start, one side will go to Jail, the other side will feel bolder to start anther one.Clause 8 prescribes that 'hate propaganda' is an offence when a person by words oral or written or a visible representation causes hate against a 'group' or a person belonging to a 'group' (meaning a religious or linguistic minority and in a given state may include the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.) ...
Under clause 74 of the bill if an offence of hate propaganda is alleged against a person, a presumption of guilt shall exist unless the offender proves to the contrary. An allegation thus is equivalent to proof.
Isn't this curiously similar to the blasphemy law of TSP?Under clause 74 of the bill if an offence of hate propaganda is alleged against a person, a presumption of guilt shall exist unless the offender proves to the contrary. An allegation thus is equivalent to proof.
What about the ruined careers of these IPS men?In what could mean a clean chit to former Gujarat Director General of Police P C Pande, the Supreme Court appointed special investigation team has told a special court in Ahmedabad [ Images ] that there was no evidence of dereliction of duty by the IPS officer during the 2002 riots.
The submission was made on Thursday by the SIT in the court of Special Judge B J Dhandha, hearing the Gulburg society riot case, where 69 persons including ex-MP Ehsan Jaffery were killed on February 28, 2002.
Some of the victims of the Gulburg society riots had filed an application in the court early this month demanding that Pande and three other police officers be made accused in the case on charges of dereliction of duty.
Special Public Prosecutor R C Kodekar made oral submission opposing the application moved by the riot victims, contending that there was no evidence on record against Pande and others, including P B Gondia the then DCP Zone IV, S S Chudasama, who was ACP (crime branch) in February 2002, and former Joint Commissioner of Police M K Tandon (now retired).
Also, out of the over 300 witnesses examined during the trial in the case, none had implicated Pande or others nor was any complaint filed against them, he said.
Kodekar further said that the victims' application to make Tandon an accused in the case was already rejected by the court last year as the SIT had said that investigation with regard to Tandon was on and a report regarding this was submitted to the Supreme Court.
The court has reserved order on the victim's application for May 31.
The draft is of an espeically eggregious nature, starting with that definition of "group"..But misrepresentation isnt required to further damn it..Aditya_V wrote:Cross Posting from the Indian Interests Thread.
Clause 8 prescribes that 'hate propaganda' is an offence when a person by words oral or written or a visible representation causes hate against a 'group' or a person belonging to a 'group' (meaning a religious or linguistic minority and in a given state may include the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.) ...
Under clause 74 of the bill if an offence of hate propaganda is alleged against a person, a presumption of guilt shall exist unless the offender proves to the contrary. An allegation thus is equivalent to proof.
It refers to a presumption of "offences", not a presumption of "guilt"...Shorn of the legalese, what it means IMO is that in a "hindu-muslim" riot situation, if a hindu is accused of murdering a muslim, then it will be presumed that the murder motive was the hindu-muslim communal issue, and not anything else...Hence, the case will be tried under the provisions of this Bill..Presumptions as to offences under this Act.- (1) If in a prosecution for any offence committed under this Act, it is shown that the accused committed or abetted or conspired to commit the offence of hate propaganda under section 8, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the offence committed was knowingly directed against a person by virtue of his or her membership of a group.
(2) Whenever an offence of organized communal and targeted violence is committed and it is shown that a hostile environment against a group exists or the offence of hate propaganda under section 8 was committed against a group, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the said offence was knowingly directed against persons belonging to the group by virtue of their membership of the group.
Ahmedabad, 25 May, 2011
Rais Khan Pathan, former associate of Teesta (Javed) Setalvad and an accused in the Pandarwada mass grave exhumation case, criticized Justice P.B. Sawant for favoring Teesta and heading “Committee for Defense of Teesta Setalvad & Justice in Gujarat.” The committee was formed on 23rd May 2011 in Mumbai by Sawant, Desai and former Gujarat Chief Minister Suresh Mehta. The very interesting note of Pathan sent to Mr. Sawant is presented below.
Dear Mr Justice PB Sawant,
I am deeply distressed to write this Open Letter to you as I would be calling into question certain facts to a Judge who was once part of the Supreme Court of India and who has the rare distinction of practiced all branches of law.
I, as an ordinary social worker, am truly perturbed that you addressed a press conference on 23rd May 2011 at Mumbai after forming a dubious body “Committee for defense of Teesta Setalvad & justice in Gujarat” in support of Teesta who has often been seen to be toying with the majesty of law and was pulled up by the Supreme Court itself for taking her grievances in the ongoing Godhra riot cases to an international human rights agency at a time when the apex court itself was monitoring the progress of the investigations. She has been repeatedly stepping on the toes of the law unmindful of the consequences & cheating her own people for her selfish gains.
In the past you had been closely associated with Medha Patkar, a social activist of dubious character who has been finally unmasked when the SC reprimanded her for filing false affidavits and misleading the court. The apex court even cautioned all courts across the country not to be swayed and be careful when entertaining her (medha) petitions.
You have participated in seminars and discussions in favor of naxal sympathizer Binayak Sen who was convicted on the charges of sedition and recently granted bail by the SC.
Is this habit of yours (that you always side with the wrong people), has now forced you to support Teesta?
You will recall that you visited Ahmedabad in April 2002 along with Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer & Justice H Suresh & K.G. Kannabirayan , President PUCL etcc… & stayed in Karnavati club for conducting an inquiry of Gujarat riots under the banner of Concerned Citizens Tribunal. During your stay in the club, I met you on number of occasions as I was the Chief Co-Ordinator for bringing all the victims and witnesses from various part of the state to Ahmedabad for deposition before you. I still remember that before victims and witnesses were sent to depose before your panel, they were tutored by Teesta Setalvad and Sohel Tirmizi in an another room of the club. I am an eye-witness of that proceedings.
My questions to you are not frivolous in the least nor do I intend it to be so. Permit me to refresh your memory on cases filed against Teesta Setalvad by her own people. These cases have become legion and if you go through patiently you will realize how serious the charges are for an honest appraisal. Few examples are given below:
1) Yasmeen Banu Sheikh: A prime prosecution witness in Best Bakery Case in her affidavit dtd 17/06/2010 to the Chief Justice Mumbai H.C. accused Teesta Setalvad for forcing her to lie in the Trial court at Mumbai & stated “ Teesta setalvad made me to give false testimony in the Best Bakery case by luring & misguiding me”. She narrated how after her deposition she was thrown out from the house where she was kept for 11 months. When Mumbai H.C. had not taken any cognizance on her affidavit, she filed a writ petition in the Mumbai H.C. to re-examine her in the interest of justice
2) Qutubudin Nasiruddin Ansari whose photographs with folded hand became face of Gujarat riots, in a letter to the Collector Ahmedabad on 7th July 2009 stated that he was sent to Ahmedabad by an NGO (obviously by Teesta’s CJP) and later to Malegaon but came back to Ahmedabad because now everything is normal in Gujarat and now he is happily settled here. This person was too was cheated by her.
3) Madina Banu: A witness of Naroda Gam case during her deposition in August’ 2010 before the SIT as well as in the court of Additional Session Judge disowned parts of her affidavit submitted before the Supreme Court saying she was not raped though she spoke of being raped by the mob in her affidavit to the S.C on the prodding of Teesta.
4) Zahira Habibulah Sheikh: A star witness of Best Bakery case filed a criminal complaint against Teesta Setalvad that she was forced by Teesta to give false deposition. She was kept confined illegally in 2003 and Zahira has not only accused Teesta but also her other associates in Baroda
5) Nanumiya Rasulmiya Malik: A witness of Naroda gam case no. 203/2009 during deposition in August’ 2010 before SIT as well as before Additional Session Judge disowned certain parts of his affidavit submitted before the Supreme Court through the CJP of Setalvad. Nanumiya denied seeing any rape or murder on 28th Febuary’ 2002 which was mentioned in his affidavit in S.C.
6) Imran Pathan: A witness of Naroda gam case too disowned certain parts of his affidavit denying seeing any rape or murder though in his affidavit to the SC had vouched for mass murder & rape in Naroda gam area.
7) Rafiq Malik: A witness of Naroda gam case during his deposition in September ‘2010 retracted like above mentioned witnesses saying he did not see any rape or murder on 28th Febuary’ 2002 though his affidavit said it differently.
8 ) Zahid Kadri: An educated Muslim leader, of Ahmedabad in his affidavit dtd 28/05/2010 to the Chief Justice of India, blamed Teesta Setalvad for using him for her selfish games in the name of helping him in getting justice for his son, who was killed in the police firing during the 2002 riots. Mr. Kadri in his affidavit has blamed Teesta for misguiding poor Muslims in the name of religion & collecting money in the name of helping riot victims.
9) Pandarwada Case:
a) On 27th December 2005, on the instructions of Teesta Setalvad, I along with others dug-up the graves near Panam river closed to Pandarwada without permission. An FIR was filed against me & others. Though everything was done on her instructions she never supported us. I alongwith Gulam kadri, sikander Abbas were arrested and send to jail for no fault of ours. Out of 9 accused persons, 5 persons namely myself, Gulam kharadi, Sikander Abbas, Kutub shah Diwan, Jabir Mohammed recorded statement U/s 164 of CrPC before the magistrate & narrated the true story of how we were forced to do this act by Teesta Setalvad. The Pandarwada police has already filed the first charge-sheet against us. Teesta managed anticipatory bail for herself but never bothered for us.
b) Rahul Singh a Senior Journalist working with Headlines Today, New Delhi is one of the witnesses of this case who reported the story, at that time. Mr. Singh who is an independent witness in this case in his affidavit dtd 18/02/2011 to the I.O. Lunawada categorically mentioned that “I met Raiskhan & others, spoke to Teesta & visited Pandarwada as a part of my journalist duty, however at no point of time during my interaction with Rasikhan & telephonic conversations with Teesta Setalvad, I was ever told by them that they have not taken permission from the authorities to exhume the bodies & that they knew that the body so buried by the police near Panam river at the outskirts of Lunawada town, were buried with proper procedure”. Mr. Singh also stated that “ he has not given any interview to any magazine/newspapers on the subject & whatever has been published in my name was without my knowledge & concurrence”. Teesta planted stories in various newspapers in his name.
Details of my cases against Teesta:
• I Filed a complaint against Teesta on 09/09/2010 to the commissioner of police, Ahmedabad accusing her of hacking of my e-mail account.
• I Filed an application on 30/11/2010 U/s 311 of CrPC 1973, in the court of Additional Session Judge, Mehsana in the Sardarpura Massacre case no. 275/2002 for examining me as a court/prosecution witness because all affidavits dated 06/11/2003 of witnesses namely Ibrahim miya rasool miya sheikh, Nazair mohammed sheikh, Hizbul miya sheikh, Ashiq hussain sheikh, Mohammed Sattar sheikh etc…were prepared by Teesta Setalvad & sent to me in my e-mail account for notarization from these witnesses. Contents of the affidavits were in English & were not known to these witnesses.
• I Filed an application on 28/10/2010 U/s 311 of CrPC 1973 in the court of Additional Session Judge, Ahmedabad in the Naroda Gam case no. 203/2009 for examining me as a court/prosecution witness because main witnesses of the case namely Nanumiya Rasulmiya Malik, Madina Banu & Imran Pathan distracted from their original affidavit filed in the S.C. through Teesta Setalvad & claimed that various contents of the affidavit are false & were inserted by me without their knowledge.
• I Filed an application on 01/11/2010 U/s 311 of CrPC 1973 in the court of Additional Session Judge, Ahmedabad in the Gulbarg Society case no. 152/2002 for examining me as a court/prosecution witness because Zakia Jafri, widow of former Congress MP Ehsaan Jafri lied before the court that she has not taken any help from Teesta Setalvad. The court on 3rd November’ 2010 ordered SIT to record my statement. Imtiyaz Khan Pathan a closed associate of Teesta Setalvad filed an SLP no. 7046 of 2010 in the S.C. for stay of order. I filed the intervention application in this case. Fearing that S.C. may pass adverse order, she decided to withdraw the application.
• Justice Nanavati Shah Commision – I filed an affidavit in the Justice Nanavati Shah Commision on 19/10/2010 with a prayer to take appropriate action against Teesta Setalvad who has mislead various courts & forced innocent victims & witnesses to file false affidavits which can lead to prosecution of innocent persons in the on going trials in various courts on the basis of false & fabricated affidavits prepared by Teesta with ulterior motive.
Despite all the above stated facts if you still stand by Teesta Setalvad, the bigger question that one would like to ask you is, if there is an axe to grind in all of this, when universally, after retirement a judge is expected to maintain his decorum and should not hobnob with convicts & dubious characters.
This question is really disturbing me as to how can a learned judge like you, support a person who cheats her own people and her agenda is to earn name, fame and money on the bodies of riot victims?
I am sure you would like to give an honest answer to me.
Rais Khan Pathan
D/A-28, Ajit Residency