bulbul Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 It doesn't matter when SC bans gays. Modi's opinion matters more than SC's ruling. The moment i saw Supreme court in OP my phone fell down...how can people who refuse to accept SC order,suddenly found SC orders which are real.
ravishingravi Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 Same SC found no evidence againt dear leader' date='but same posters never posted that [/quote'] Uss time pey internet kharab ho Gaya. Abhi election hotey hi achey din aa gaye
Khalpat Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 I think this has happened at many other states also. Maharastra, after Malegaon lot of innocent muslims got caught, UP after Ayodhya blast lot of innocent muslims got caught and later on they were freed after court intervention. Lot of innocent Sikhs got jailed and killed when Beant Singh was trying to nabn terrorism in Punjab. In US also after 911, these kind of incidents happened, its unfortunate but when our internal security is not very strong and we have such a hostile neighbourhood, these things are bound to happen.
Stuge Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 Same SC found no evidence againt dear leader' date='but same posters never posted that [/quote'] :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Irony .. fact :people want to hear what is they want to hear .. rest is all gas.. !
Khalpat Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 ^^ And the best part is OP says i hate people who see everything in Black And white. But for him Modi is only black and opposer of him is White :hysterical: :hysterical:
The Outsider Posted May 20, 2014 Author Posted May 20, 2014 1. Supreme Court has not given any clean chit to Modi. Clean chit for Modi comes from a lower court in Gujarat, and OP clearly shows the incompetence of Gujarat courts, even their High Court. We'll see when the case finally makes its way to the Supreme Court. 2. No one sings hosannas about the UP model or the Congress model.
bulbul Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 2012 In a big relief for Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi, the Supreme Court-appointed SIT has given him a clean chit in the post-Godhra Gulberg massacre case and sought its closure as it found no evidence against him The court ordered that a copy of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) report and related documents be given to Zakia within 30 days, giving her the right to pursue her private criminal complaint against Modi and others. It will now have to decide whether to accept or reject the closure report after hearing the complainant http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Narendra-Modi-gets-clean-chit-in-SIT-report-on-Gujarat-riots-Zakia-Jafri-vows-to-continue-her-fight/articleshow/12612345.cms April 2014 The Supreme Court on Friday has turned down a plea questioning the clean chit given to the Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP) prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi in connection with the 2002 Gujarat riots. A bench comprising of Justices H.L. Dattu and S.A. Bobde also declined the plea for reconstituting the Special Investigation Team (SIT) involving retired judges of the apex court on the ground that this option was not good to raise it at this moment. It also turned down the inclusion of a person belonging from the minority community into the SIT. Soon after the remark, the advocate who had filed the petition, decided to withdraw it and it was allowed by the court. The Supreme Court on April 4 expressed satisfaction over the probes conducted by former CBI director RK Raghavan who headed the SIT in nine cases related to the 2002 riots in Gujarat post Godhra http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-supreme-court-rejects-plea-questioning-clean-chit-to-narendra-modi-on-role-in-2002-gujarat-riots-1977348
Crookbond Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 SIT is an investigative agency (consisting of and not the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can over rule SIT; the views of the SIT are not defacto views of the SC. Since, we have got that done with - the SIT has not used the word "clean chit" in its report as far as I have read it. The phrase used is "lack of prosecutable evidence".
coffee_rules Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 ^SC appoints SIT judges. Not the government. The second link says SC has turned down the petition questioning the SIT judgement.
Stuge Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 Lol wonder what else mr outy wants..He can definately challange the same in international courts if he wants. Sent from my XT535 using Tapatalk 2
bulbul Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 SIT is an investigative agency (consisting of and not the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can over rule SIT; the views of the SIT are not defacto views of the SC. Since' date= we have got that done with - the SIT has not used the word "clean chit" in its report as far as I have read it. The phrase used is "lack of prosecutable evidence". Is that happened in this case?
Raghav_12 Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 SIT is an investigative agency (consisting of and not the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can over rule SIT; the views of the SIT are not defacto views of the SC. Since' date=' we have got that done with - the SIT has not used the word "clean chit" in its report as far as I have read it. The phrase used is "lack of prosecutable evidence".[/quote'] This clean chit business has been misrepresented to public by Modi bhakts. Going by that logic, courts haven't found evidences of corruption against 99% of the politician, does that mean 99% of them are non-corrupt. In short, SC never gave verdict on "whether Modi could have done better in handling of Gujrat riots in whole if there was no alleged communal bias"? If SC says "NO" in answer of this question, then I would say there is clean chit by SC to Modi. Otherwise it is just that his role in specific incidents could not be proven. For me, yes he could have done much better if he didn't have such strong inclination towards one specific community. What exposes him further ism his rewarding Maya Kodnani with cabinet birth for her role in riots/
gattaca Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 This clean chit business has been misrepresented to public by Modi bhakts. Going by that logic' date=' courts haven't found evidences of corruption against 99% of the politician,[b'] does that mean 99% of them are non-corrupt. In short, SC never gave verdict on "whether Modi could have done better in handling of Gujrat riots in whole if there was no alleged communal bias"? If SC says "NO" in answer of this question, then I would say there is clean chit by SC to Modi. Otherwise it is just that his role in specific incidents could not be proven. For me, yes he could have done much better if he didn't have such strong inclination towards one specific community. What exposes him further ism his rewarding Maya Kodnani with cabinet birth for her role in riots/ care to list 99 % then ?
Crookbond Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 ^SC appoints SIT judges. Not the government. The second link says SC has turned down the petition questioning the SIT judgement. SIT judges! What are you talking about? SIT is not a court, it is just an investigative team appointed by the SC. The SIT report is not defacto truth. Please post the plea and the SC judgment to the 2nd link. I would like to read what the plea was and what the SC was against. You must be knowledgeable enough on this topic to know that SC was not satisfied with the SIT report closure and had asked to include Amicus Curaie findings (which it did not in the end). The case hasn't gone to the SC as yet, heck it is not even in the HC. The report was only upheld in the magistrate court. Oh and FYI, here we are only talking about the SIT report in the Gulberg massacre case, There's another case from the Naroda Patiya massacre in which to my knowledge SIT has not even submitted its report since inception. This is the same case where Maya Kodnani was convicted after being let off by (hold your breath) the magistrate court. Is that happened in this case? :facepalm: The acceptance of the SIT report has no correlation with the judgment of the case. I can "accept" the report but reject the conclusions and make a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. And btw, since you swear on the SIT report please note that the same report says many objectionable things about Modi and his behavior during the 2002 riots. You can't have it both ways. Like I said earlier, there is no phrase "clean chit" in the SIT report which I have read of. IF you find it, please link me to the relevant portion of it.
Crookbond Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 care to list 99 % then ? Some exclusive members of that club include - Sonia Gandhi, Kabil Sibbal, P Chidambaram, Manmohan Singh, Salman Khurshid who are completely non-corrupt because the courts have not pronounced them as so.
gattaca Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 Some exclusive members of that club include - Sonia Gandhi' date=' Kabil Sibbal, P Chidambaram, Manmohan Singh, Salman Khurshid who are completely non-corrupt because the courts have not pronounced them as so.[/quote'] Are there any cases against them ?
Crookbond Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 Are there any cases against them ? I know where you are going so make your point and you will realize why/how it is flawed.
Recommended Posts