bulbul Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 SIT is appointed by the SC - I never suggested otherwise. I think you are misinformed on the case not going to the SC; it will go to the SC because Zakia Jafri will keep on challenging it. I want to know exactly what the petition is about. You are confusing entities here - investigative agency, reports, courts and charge sheets. The acceptance of the SIT report by the magistrate court does not create any hindrance for another charge sheet or FIR. Only reason it may go because all other courts thrown it out & unless she provided solid proof there is nothing SC can do because it already commissioned a SIT. But now the question is, when SC appointed a SIT, it did for some reason. SIT gave report , SC is happy with that & it doesn't even want to revoke it. 12 years passed since incident, SC is happy with the commission it only setup so now on what basis people can whine everyday?
bulbul Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 When SC concurs with Gujarat high court and lower courts in other cases' date=' does that mean that the courts are still incompetent?[/quote'] For some people courts will be competent only after person who they hate is convicted, even if falsely :giggle:
ravishingravi Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 This thread looks incredibly stupid Disagree. I think it symbolises hope and change. Well whom am I kidding. It symbolises, dismay, despondency, predictability and no work perhaps. Not unlike congress party.
Raghav_12 Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 Only reason it may go because all other courts thrown it out & unless she provided solid proof there is nothing SC can do because it already commissioned a SIT. But now the question is, when SC appointed a SIT, it did for some reason. SIT gave report , SC is happy with that & it doesn't even want to revoke it. 12 years passed since incident, SC is happy with the commission it only setup so now on what basis people can whine everyday? You need understand few things before you try to conclude things. SIT may have been appointed by SC but at the end it is investigating agency and worked only as the replacement of Police. In a typical case where a private complaint is filed with a competent court, then court forwards that complaint to Police for investigation. In this case complaint was sent to SIT because Gujrat police can not be trusted with respect investigation against it own boss. So get this thing out of your mind that SC = SIT. Closest you can say SIT = Police. Secondly, I haven't read what exactly private complaint was, will read that, but apparently SIT didn't recommend prosecution of Narendra Modi in one partuclular incident. Does SC agree with these findings - No. We don't know yet. Matter has not reached there. This report was submitted to magistrate court/ Magostrate court accepted that. Opposite party had a right to challenge that report, which they did but Magistrate court over ruled that. Now Zakia has option of going to session court, high court and Supreme court. No way SC has agreed to SIT's finding till now. Thirdly, about another link that you posted, where SC didn't allow petition against SIT, had nothing to do with whether they agree with findings or not. SC didn't agree with the claims that SIT used wrong methodology or claims that SIT didn't work properly/ It was never a comment on the findings of SIT but rather on the functioning of SIT. I know this is futile exercise, but if you read and comprehend what is written here, probably you would know how absolutely misleading these claims are that "SC has given clean chit to Modi on Gujrat riots"/ But his team was successful in misleading people on this as well just like thousand other things. Just on another line, courts have not found anything against Tytler and Sajjan Kumar. But why their political careers have been finished then?
Stuge Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 Nahh this thread is real hope for haters.They have been churrning this for past 12 years ,and now he just few days away from taking oath as PM of India. Sent from my XT535 using Tapatalk 2
EnterTheVoid Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 Textbook garbage. This stupid article isn't fit to be used as toilet paper.
maniac Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 This thread is our own version of barkha dutt and pranoy Roy s :whine: on results day
Khalpat Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 Their is a difference between Sore loser and Graceful loser. Unfortunately only Dexter can be termed as graceful at ICF. Bhai he won! come out of it. Try something new, fear mongering and negative propoganda has not helped at all. OP, chaiwallah won the election. May be I would remind you about your post were while discussing with me you said you will praise Mr Modi only after he gains majority. First open a congratulation Modi thread then we have 5 more years for these kind of stuffs.
Crookbond Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 I gave MMS example just because you said he is clean..i am not blaming MMS here.. Again no comments against SC as well...the cases you mentioned happens across the world, unless its proved intentional you cannot give it as a example & tell that's Gujarat model etc. :WTF: First you argue that unless court convicts the person is not guilty. I gave an example of a non-convicted person and then you say he is guilty because xyz. I use the same yardstick and say Modi is guilty and then you tell because "I said he's clean". :wall: I have his example because of your court comment. The SC says "Home Minister shows lack of mind". You conveniently change the burden of proof depending on which side you are. Your logic would dictate that MMS presided over scams unintentionally and he is guilty only if you prove it is intentional and corruption happens all over the world. Also, two points - (1) No it doesn't happen all over the world that home ministers chargesheet innocent people and ostracize them via jail time by use of slow judicial process and (2) This is not the first time the SC has rapped the Gujarat government for such means. But, I'm sure you'd have no knowledge what I'm talking about.
Stuge Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 Dexter Morgon reasoning has absolutely gone bonkers now :hysterical:
JaiRamesh2 Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 ^^ the appearance of Panther means this thread has become useless and is near it's end. :cantstop: Count down to lockdown, 10...9...8...
jf1gp_1 Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 Every party fought the election with a single slogan BJP- Modi are anti muslim, they still won. Lets just have some faith that they have learnt from their mistakes and we will see good governance from them in coming years.
Crookbond Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 Dexter Morgon reasoning has absolutely gone bonkers now :hysterical: Can you tell me if I am wrong on any facts rather than mention a crude statement followed by a random smiley? That will be much useful for the discussion out here. I will be happy to correct myself. Currently, your contribution is a big ZERO here. I understand it may be difficult for you to understand my points but here is an executive summary -- (1) Modi has got no "clean chit" either by the SC or SIT and (2) Modi is responsible for ostracizing 6 people to jail. Oh and btw, if you forgot go read the OP and check what the SC says about Modi who was the Home Minister at that point.
vvvslaxman Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 Every party fought the election with a single slogan BJP- Modi are anti muslim' date=' they still won. Lets just have some faith that they have learnt from their mistakes and we will see good governance from them in coming years.[/quote'] It is a bit like Bill Ayers/Obama connection coverage by FOX news during 2008 election. If we are going to extrapolate the bad issues at national level you won't bump into a half decent leader. If you find he will be a puppet like this dude. Have faith. I am pretty sure no one believes NM will start hunting muslims and put them in prison as soon as he assumes the power . That is just a talking point of congress. Now that he has been elected as PM and people totally rejected the failed government., let jus ust back him and hope for the best.
Texan Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 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". If you are accused of murder tomorrow and acquitted later by a court, it will use the same "lack of prosecutable evidence" as the reason for the acquittal. Anybody who is acquitted is acquitted due to lack of evidence of the involvement of the person in the crime. Common sense.
Texan Posted May 20, 2014 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. Incomplete facts. Supreme Court has rejected a plea questioning the clean chit given to Modi by the SIT. Supreme Court rejects plea questioning clean chit to Narendra Modi on role in 2002 Gujarat riots Friday, 11 April 2014 - 3:06pm IST | Place: New Delhi | Agency: ANI 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
Raghav_12 Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 Incomplete facts. Supreme Court has rejected a plea questioning the clean chit given to Modi by the SIT. http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-supreme-court-rejects-plea-questioning-clean-chit-to-narendra-modi-on-role-in-2002-gujarat-riots-1977348 Read my post 67 of this thread. Here SC has merely agreed with the functioning of SIT not with the findings of SIT. SC will look into the findings only when report submitted by SIT is taken to Supreme Court.
Texan Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 Read my post 67 of this thread. Here SC has merely agreed with the functioning of SIT not with the findings of SIT. SC will look into the findings only when report submitted by SIT is taken to Supreme Court. Post # 28 portrays an incorrect picture by leaving out this important judgement that was passed, thereby seeming to imply that the Supreme Court had nothing to do with the case so far. I have pointed out this discrepancy.
bulbul Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 You need understand few things before you try to conclude things. SIT may have been appointed by SC but at the end it is investigating agency and worked only as the replacement of Police. In a typical case where a private complaint is filed with a competent court, then court forwards that complaint to Police for investigation. In this case complaint was sent to SIT because Gujrat police can not be trusted with respect investigation against it own boss. So get this thing out of your mind that SC = SIT. Closest you can say SIT = Police. Secondly, I haven't read what exactly private complaint was, will read that, but apparently SIT didn't recommend prosecution of Narendra Modi in one partuclular incident. Does SC agree with these findings - No. We don't know yet. Matter has not reached there. This report was submitted to magistrate court/ Magostrate court accepted that. Opposite party had a right to challenge that report, which they did but Magistrate court over ruled that. Now Zakia has option of going to session court, high court and Supreme court. No way SC has agreed to SIT's finding till now. Thirdly, about another link that you posted, where SC didn't allow petition against SIT, had nothing to do with whether they agree with findings or not. SC didn't agree with the claims that SIT used wrong methodology or claims that SIT didn't work properly/ It was never a comment on the findings of SIT but rather on the functioning of SIT. I know this is futile exercise, but if you read and comprehend what is written here, probably you would know how absolutely misleading these claims are that "SC has given clean chit to Modi on Gujrat riots"/ But his team was successful in misleading people on this as well just like thousand other things. Just on another line, courts have not found anything against Tytler and Sajjan Kumar. But why their political careers have been finished then? SIT is appointed by SC to find evidence & report back..SIT did....SC happy..NaMo happy..i am happy. Reagrding why Sajjan & Tytler poliical career is over - because they are useless,people dont want them.
bulbul Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 :WTF: First you argue that unless court convicts the person is not guilty. I gave an example of a non-convicted person and then you say he is guilty because xyz. I use the same yardstick and say Modi is guilty and then you tell because "I said he's clean". :wall: I have his example because of your court comment. The SC says "Home Minister shows lack of mind". You conveniently change the burden of proof depending on which side you are. Your logic would dictate that MMS presided over scams unintentionally and he is guilty only if you prove it is intentional and corruption happens all over the world. Also, two points - (1) No it doesn't happen all over the world that home ministers chargesheet innocent people and ostracize them via jail time by use of slow judicial process and (2) This is not the first time the SC has rapped the Gujarat government for such means. But, I'm sure you'd have no knowledge what I'm talking about. Did SC said convict Home minister? did FIR filed gaianst home minister? It's not what SC says,its about final result..as long as some one not convicetd you cannot use it as a benchmark & start fear mongering. As for SC rapped Gujarath govt means nothing,it raps lot of governments for lot of reasons. You can keep on whining but nothing chnages from teh fact that there is no proof gaainst Modi other than hatred from certain sections.
Recommended Posts