SC:Teesta Setalvad lied

[Gambit]

Gujarat riots: SIT says Teesta's charges false New Delhi: The Gujarat government on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that the Special Investigating Team (SIT) probing the 2002 post-Godhra riot cases has found as "false" all major charges levelled against it by the NGO headed by social activist Teesta Setalvad. "Reading of the report shows that all major allegations made by the NGO (Citizens for Justice and Peace) for the last five years have been found to be false by the SIT," senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Gujarat government, told a Bench headed by Arijit Pasayat. The report of the apex court-appointed SIT, placed before the Bench last month in a sealed cover, was handed over only to the state government and senior advocate Harish Salve who is assisting the court as amicus curiae in the matter. He and advocate Sourav Kripal said that among the allegations that a pregnant woman Kausar Bano's fetus was taken out and killed in Naroda Patiya has been found false. They said questions have been raised on the role of the NGO and its advocate Mohammed Suhail Muhammed Husain Tirmizi who helped the witnesses in filing their affidavits relating to the riot cases. Rohatgi said the report of the SIT clearly says the NGO, which had made the allegations against the BJP government, had given stereotype affidavits in almost all riot cases. "The SIT has completely exonerated the state authorities and the police authorities. For the last many years, we had been stressing in the Supreme Court that the state had not taken any biased or partial attitude as had been alleged by NGOs," Rohtagi said. "Finally the Supreme Court appointed the high-powered Special Investigative Team, which would report only to the Supreme Court. The Chairman is R K Raghavan, a very senior retired police officer. They went into all the allegations contained in the six to seven major cases, Such as Gulbarg Society case, the Naroda Patia case, the British Nationals case and many others. In all the cases, the horrendous allegations made by the NGOS against the state and its authorities, against the partial attitude of the authorities, against not helping the victims, have been found to be false," he added. "It has been reported by the SIT that various affidavits filed by the witnesses were found to be stereotype affidavits. They were prepared by the NGOS. These were repetitive copies taken out from a computer and they were found to be wrong," he further stated. Advocate Aparna Bhat, who was appearing for Citizens for Justice and Peace, raised objections to the state government making allegations against two members of the NGO. However, the Bench said it was not going into the allegations. "We are not going to say anything on allegations," the Bench - also comprising Justices P Sathasivam and Aftab Alam - said. "Justice must prevail. Truth can be arrived only if the atmosphere is there," the Bench observed. At this point, senior advocate Indra Jaising, appearing for some victims, said "how can there be a conducive atmosphere when the government is same"? Her plea that victims should also be provided with the copy of the SIT report was not accepted by the Bench. The apex court favoured setting up of designated courts for holding trial of post-Godhra riot cases on a day-to-day basis as delay would only lead to more allegations and counter-allegations. The Bench reserved its order in this regard asking the state government, Salve and Additional Solicitior General Gopal Subramanium to place before it the suggestions by next Monday.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/gujarat-riots-sit-says-teestas-charges-false/90200-3.html

[Lurker]

Another reason why Indian Judiciary should be listened to instead of jumping guns and taking matters into one's own hands.

[veeru_rocks]

How come this is not on ibnlive 24/7 they did wekk long dance program on how Zaheera Sheikh lied.. Tavleen Singh rightly calls this bit$h communalims is weird subject to be maing money on and that's what her communalism combat purportedly is achieveing going by its tax records

[veeru_rocks]

Another reason why Indian Judiciary should be listened to instead of jumping guns and taking matters into one's own hands.

Few nuggets from lives of judges, but agreed overall judiciary still works Problme is hitlers llike Rajev gandhi parades over judiciary when it doesn't suit him : Shah bano episode All non-BJP parties don;t give a rat's ***** about SC's insistance that for secular India we need UCC. Or for instance SC repealoing of IMDT and subsequent observation of SC and Aasam high court thatsomethign must be done about problme of illegal migration from bangaldesh in Assam.. Congressi govt of day not only doesn't accept that it's a problem but also is trying ways to hoodwink SC again ShahBano style on IMDT. - Justice V. Ramaswamy - ) The first-ever impeachment motion against a SC judge, Justice V. Ramaswami, was signed by 108 MPs in 1991. A year later, an inquiry found Ramaswami “guilty of willful and gross misuses of office… “While serving as the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Courtâ€. Ramaswami survived the impeachment process as Parliament got divided along regional lines, southern MPs strongly supported him. Only 196 members of Parliament, less than the required two-thirds, voted for his ouster. A Historic Non-impeachement - - Justice M.M. Punchi - This charge sheet was prepared by the Committee on Judicial Accountability in 1998, when Justice Punchhi was a judge of the Supreme Court of India. It was signed by 25 MPs of Rajya Sabha. However, before it could get the signature of the requisite number of 50 MPs of Rajya Sabha, Justice Punchhi was appointed Chief Justice of India. After this, it became virtually impossible to get the Notice of Motion signed by any MPs. Consequently, Notice of Motion could not be presented to the Speaker. The imp lesson of this exercise was that it is very difficult to get the MPs sign the impeachment motion unless three conditions are satisfied. Firstly, the charges must be very serious; secondly they must be provable by documentary evidence which is annexed to the Notice of Motion and finally, the charges must have been given substantial publicity in the media. In the absence of all the three conditions been satisfied, MPs are afraid and reluctant to sign a charge sheet against a sitting judge. It is normally exceedingly difficult to get documentary evidence to prove charge against sitting judge, particularly in the absence of a statutory investigation by an agency having powers of investigation. Moreover, the bulk of the main stream media is afraid to publicise charges against the sitting judge for fear of contempt. In Ramaswami’s case, the above three conditions were satisfied. Documentary evidence was available against Ramaswami because of the report of the Accountant General who audited the purchases made by Ramaswami as Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court. This is why, impeachment of judges, however corrupt they might be, is not a practical remedy in discipling them. - Justice A.S. Anand - Serious allegations of corruption and favouritism were raised against Justice A.S.Anand former Chief Justice of India pertaining to the period when he was the Judge and the Chief Justice of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court. Investigations against Judges - Justice K. Veeraswamy - Justice K.Veeraswamy the then Chief Justice of Madras High Court was charged for possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and a case was filed against him by the CBI under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court of Madras dismissed his Petition for quashing of the Case against him and referred the matter to the Supreme Court for deciding certain questions of law. The Supreme Court while deciding the case against the delinquent Judge laid down strict guidelines to protect the independence of Judiciary according to which no F.I.R. can be registered against a Judge or Chief Justice of the High Court, or a Judge of the Supreme Court without the sanction of the Chief Justice of India in the matter. It was held that the Supreme Court is not a court of limited jurisdiction of only dispute settling, and that the court has been a law maker and it is the courts responsibility and duty to apply the existing law in a form more conducive to the independence of the judiciary. It was also said that any complaint against a Judge and its investigation by the CBI, if given publicity will have a far reaching impact on the judge and the litigant public therefore there is need of a judicious use of taking action under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

[veeru_rocks]

I thougth these fetus stories first came IN Arundhati Roy's fictional reporting and was long refuted as bunkum .. Good now even judiciary confirms this nonsensical stuff.. But for all the psec-pest and mulla-morons this means nothing those fictional tales will remain truth till etenity

[Lurker]

:((:((

How come this is not on ibnlive 24/7 they did wekk long dance program on how Zaheera Sheikh lied.. Tavleen Singh rightly calls this bit communalims is weird subject to be maing money on and that's what her communalism combat purportedly is achieveing going by its tax records

Phir se rona dhona?? Kya hamesha dukhi rahte ho?? It was covered by IBN. Atleast they covered it, now that they dumped it. Man you are one impossible person to please.

[veeru_rocks]

covering and making a soing and dance about ti for weeks there is a huge difference betwene those two..

[veeru_rocks]

BTW you overlooked your congress party's attitude towards SC verdict traditionally even as of today

[Lurker]

BTW you overlooked your congress party's attitude towards SC verdict traditionally even as of today

What? What is there to overlook?? I would personally support any decision by a court of law. When was the last time you saw me argue against any?? As for Congress they may not like it. Too bad, its a court verdict everyone has to abide by it.

[veeru_rocks]

What? What is there to overlook?? I would personally support any decision by a court of law. When was the last time you saw me argue against any?? As for Congress they may not like it. Too bad, its a court verdict everyone has to abide by it.

YOu become silent an otherwise cacophonous fellow against SC verdict being questioned goign silent when it involves congresis si tantamouont to support.. You are not foolign me buddy.. Let me make ti balck and white for you if there ever have been gross violatiosn of any court's verdict then it has and it will come from a party which has some autocratic streak and that is congress. BE it in past or present or I will put my neck on line and say even in future..

[beetle]

This woman has too much hate and bitterness in her .Can't expect expect her to unbiased.