is this the same chiddu of two days ago, who had opined, as a lawyer, that afzal was innocent and his trial a miscarriage of justice? Hitskin_logo Hitskin.com

This is a Hitskin.com skin preview
Install the skin • Return to the skin page

Coffeehouse for desis
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.


is this the same chiddu of two days ago, who had opined, as a lawyer, that afzal was innocent and his trial a miscarriage of justice?

Coffeehouse for desis :: Coffeehouse :: Coffeehouse Main

Go down

is this the same chiddu of two days ago, who had opined, as a lawyer, that afzal was innocent and his trial a miscarriage of justice? Empty is this the same chiddu of two days ago, who had opined, as a lawyer, that afzal was innocent and his trial a miscarriage of justice?

Post by Guest Sun Feb 28, 2016 7:48 am

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/P-Chidambaram-got-Ishrats-LeT-link-dropped-G-K-Pillai/articleshow/51173286.cms?from=mdr


NEW DELHI: P Chidambaram in his capacity as home minister had personally overseen controversial changes in the Centre's affidavit in the Ishrat Jahan case in 2009 to drop any references to her Lashkar-e-Taiba links, G K Pillai, home secretary at the time, told TOI on Saturday.

According to Pillai, Chidambaram recalled the file from the joint secretary a month after the original affidavit — which described Ishrat and her slain aides as LeT operatives — was filed in SC.

"Mr Chidambaram, who was then the home minister, had asked for the file from the joint secretary, saying that the affidavit needed to be reworked. Only after the affidavit was revised, as directed by the minister, did the file come to me," Pillai told TOI.

Chidambaram did not respond to calls and text messages seeking his version. The original affidavit, filed by the home ministry in Supreme Court in August 2009, had cited IB inputs that Ishrat and her three aides — Javed Shaikh alias Pranesh Pillai, Zeeshan Johar and Amjad Ali Rana — were part of a Lashkar sleeper cell. It had objected to a CBI probe into the encounter.

In the second affidavit filed in September 2009, the home ministry said the IB inputs did not constitute conclusive proof of the terror antecedents of those killed. "All such inputs do not constitute proof... The Centre is in no way concerned with any police action nor does it condone or endorse any unjustified or excessive action," said the affidavit, as reported by TOI on April 1, 2010.

"If on a proper consideration of the facts it is found that an independent inquiry and investigation has to be carried by CBI or otherwise, the Union of India would have no objection to such a course and would abide by such orders which the court may deem fit to pass," it added.

ISKA VESHTI UTHA KAR GAND PE DO LAAT MARO TO!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

Coffeehouse for desis :: Coffeehouse :: Coffeehouse Main

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum