SUPREME COURT'S SIT FRAMES CHARGES AGAINST TEESTA SETALVAD
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Supreme Court's SIT frames charges against Teesta
Supreme Court appointed SIT brings out charges against a leading
"activist" Teesta Setalvad for "cooking up macabre tales of
killings", tutoring witnesses, and concocting horror stories. She has
not only done deep disservice to the victims of the Gujarat riots;
she has also undermined the credibility of so-called secular
interlocutors. It confirms the suspicion many have, that often those
speaking in the name of secularism do not subscribe to the very
values they claim to be fighting for: truth, justice, impartiality
and the rule of law. Their secularism is in the service of beating
down opponents rather than discovering the truth.
"This story should have been a big front page story. It deserves much
more coverage and discussion", says the reporter.
Read - An Unconscionable Act
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/an-unconscionable-act/447301/0
Posted by Jayprakash Acharya
End of forwarded article from:
http://one-news-of-the-day.blogspot.com/2009/04/supreme-courts-sit-frames-charges.html
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.
uNmaivirumbi
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> Forwarded article
>
> Thursday, April 16, 2009
>
> Supreme Court's SIT frames charges against Teesta
>
Bharat waking up!!
She played many games
Jai Bharat
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
uNmaivirumbi <tripur...@yahoo.com> posted:
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
> >
> > Thursday, April 16, 2009
> >
> > Supreme Court's SIT frames charges against Teesta
> Bharat waking up!!
>
> She played many games
>
> Jai Bharat
Jai ho Bharat Mata kee!
harmony
intended about, never was about truth, justice or any high moral plane the
media touts for it.
here is my premise: a secularist must always be viewed with suspicion until
his words can be verified indepnedently by the hindus.
<use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote in
message news:20100316B5fm9i049u8S3bSPlG6T9a5@Pyu35...
koolfireiv
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> Forwarded article
>
> Thursday, April 16, 2009
>
> Supreme Court's SIT frames charges against Teesta
The SIT yet to submit the report as of today,petitions can be filed
alleging anything,has the supreme court taken it on record,considering
the SIT is still investigating,highly unlikely, the supreme court will
bungle like that,based on a petition filed on press reports,and
considering the SIT investigation is not public.
Controversy over false cases
In April 2009, the Times of India ran a story claiming that the
Special Investigation Team (SIT) setup by the Supreme Court of India
to investigate and expediate the Gujarat riot cases had submitted
before the Court that Teesta Setalvad had cooked up cases of violence
to spice up the incidents. The SIT which is headed by former CBI
director, R K Raghavan has said that false witnesses were tutored to
give evidence about imaginary incidents by Teesta Setalvad and other
NGOs.[15] The SIT charged her of “cooking up macabre tales of
killings”.[16]
The court was told that 22 witnesses, who had submitted identical
affidavits before various courts relating to riot incidents, were
questioned by SIT and it was found that the witnesses had not actually
witnessed the incidents and they were tutored and the affidavits were
handed over to them by Setalvad.[16]
The report which was brought to the notice of the bench consisting of
Justices Arijit Pasayat, P Sathasivam and Aftab Alam, noted that the
much publicised case of a pregnant Muslim woman Kausar Banu being
gangraped by a mob and foetus being removed with sharp weapons, was
also cooked up and false.[15][17].
A day later, the Times of India published a letter from Citizens for
Justice and Peace claiming that the report in question was not SIT
report but a report by the Gujarat Government.[18]. The author of the
Times article responded saying "My report was based on the SIT report
and not any document circulated by the Gujarat government, as
suggested by CJP. Whether any section of the media has the report or
not is irrelevant as TOI has access to the report.[19]
Dilip D'Souza has picked the loopholes in the initial story carried by
Times of India. D'Souza notes that in his rebuttal to the letter by
Citizens for Justice and Peace, the reporter does not even refer to
the three “widely publicised”incidents he originally claimed the SIT
had found “no truth” in.[20]
A report in the Hindustan Times raised questions about the TOI report.
R.K.Raghavan, the chairman of the SIT criticised the report leakage,
saying, "The alleged reported leaks appear to be inspired by dubious
motives. I cannot confirm such claims. The act is highly condemnable".
He refused to deny or confirm the reports[21]. The Supreme Court
itself condemned the leaking of the SIT report as a 'betrayal of
trust'.[22]
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
more misapplied and more abused than anywhere else in the world.
Worst, it is simply an anti-Hindu device. I agree with harmony ji;
Hindus need to monitor the activities of seculars, pseudo-seculars
and pseudo-Hindus. Do not trust them, and verify.
No country, no culture, no society is truly secular since
spirituality exists. "Secular" is defined in the manual of words as
"concerned with worldly affairs rather than spiritual ones" (Oxford
American Dictionary).
Jai Maharaj
Jyotishi, Vedic Astrologer
"A king, though endowed with little prowess,
starting on an expedition at the proper time, in
view of the good positions of the planets, achieves
greatness that is eulogised in the scriptures."
- Brhat Samhita, 104.60
Om Shanti
In article <4bae74d4$0$12417$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net>,
"harmony" <a...@hotmail.com> posted:
>
> excuse me, but secualrism is not about, never claimed to be about, never was
> intended about, never was about truth, justice or any high moral plane the
> media touts for it.
> here is my premise: a secularist must always be viewed with suspicion until
> his words can be verified indepnedently by the hindus.
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
Mirza Ghalib
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> Forwarded article
>
> Thursday, April 16, 2009
>
> Supreme Court's SIT frames charges against Teesta
>
> Supreme Court appointed SIT brings out charges against a leading
> "activist" Teesta Setalvad for "cooking up macabre tales of
> killings", tutoring witnesses, and concocting horror stories. She has
> not only done deep disservice to the victims of the Gujarat riots;
> she has also undermined the credibility of so-called secular
> interlocutors. It confirms the suspicion many have, that often those
> speaking in the name of secularism do not subscribe to the very
> values they claim to be fighting for: truth, justice, impartiality
> and the rule of law. Their secularism is in the service of beating
> down opponents rather than discovering the truth.
>
> "This story should have been a big front page story. It deserves much
> more coverage and discussion", says the reporter.
>
>
> Posted by Jayprakash Acharya
>
> End of forwarded article from:http://one-news-of-the-day.blogspot.com/2009/04/supreme-courts-sit-fr...
This (converted) Muslim woman masquerades as Hindu, the
same way one time Sharmila Tagore (now Asghar (or something like
that) Sultana) takes advantage of both worlds. There should be
a law prohibiting converts to use their original name.
P. Rajah
abominable asstrolloger wrote:
> Forwarded article
>
> Thursday, April 16, 2009
>
> Supreme Court's SIT frames charges against Teesta
>
> Supreme Court appointed SIT brings out charges against a leading
> "activist" Teesta Setalvad for "cooking up macabre tales of
> killings", tutoring witnesses, and concocting horror stories. She has
> not only done deep disservice to the victims of the Gujarat riots;
> she has also undermined the credibility of so-called secular
> interlocutors. It confirms the suspicion many have, that often those
> speaking in the name of secularism do not subscribe to the very
> values they claim to be fighting for: truth, justice, impartiality
> and the rule of law. Their secularism is in the service of beating
> down opponents rather than discovering the truth.
>
> "This story should have been a big front page story. It deserves much
> more coverage and discussion", says the reporter.
>
> Read - An Unconscionable Act
> http://www.indianexpress.com/news/an-unconscionable-act/447301/0
>
> Posted by Jayprakash Acharya
Baseless reports in the Indian media alleging that social activist
Teesta Setalvad and CPJ exaggerated the violence during Gujarat pogrom
of 2002
Official Statements by Citizens For Peace and Justice and SAHMAT
CJP’s Rebuttal on Media Coverage of Supreme Court Proceedings, April 13,
2009
The report in sections of the national media dated April 14, 2009,
alleging that NGOs, Teesta etc misled the apex court and exaggerated the
violence in Gujarat in 2002 are clear example of irresponsible
reportage. Intentionally or otherwise, the distorted report damages the
reputation of a citizens’ group that has been recognized nationally and
internationally for working assiduously to ensure justice to the victims
of mass violence whether in case of the Gujarat carnage (2002), or the
bomb blasts in Mumbai (2006 and 2008) or the communal carnage in
Kandhamal district, Orissa (2008), irrespective of the caste or creed of
the victims or the perpetrators.
The fact is that neither Sri Raghavan, nor any other SIT member was
present at the apex court to “tell” it anything. These reports could
only be referring to a contention made in a four page note circulated by
Ms Hemantika Wahi for the Gujarat Government.. It was NOT a note
prepared by SIT.
The detailed report of SIT submitted to the Supreme Court on March 6,
2007 has not been available for study either to National Human Rights
Commission (NHRC), the petitioners in this case, or the Citizens for
Justice and Peace (CJP) who have intervened in this critical matter or
to any in the media. Any reference to it is hence hearsay and it may
amount to contempt of court to write about a report which the Court has
specifically not made public.
In its written note that the Gujarat state circulated in court
yesterday, the state has given its brief comments on the SIT report. In
para four of this note the Gujarat government note refers to alleged
statements made by some witnesses in the Gulberg case before SIT that
name accused other than those named by them in the written statements
that were (according to the state of Gujarat) given to them by Teesta
Setalvad and advocates. This is the version of the Gujarat state.
Besides this, Mukhul Rohatgi tried to make a populist speech in court
saying that incidents like the Kauser Bano case etc never happened. The
Supreme Court disregarded this argument and did not allow Mr.Rohatgi to
read anything from the report. The court went on to state that they were
not interested in personal allegations and only ensuring that, like in
the course of the Zahira Shaikh case, the trials are fair, the truth
comes out and the course of justice is served.
It is necessary to recalled that in the course of the Best Bakery trial,
too, the Gujarat government had tried to divert the court’s attention by
engineering charges against Teesta Setalvad, secretary CJP and by
implication the NGO. On Setalvad’s application to the apex court for a
full fledged inquiry the report of the Registrar of the apex court
exonerated Setalvad and the NGO completely.
As reported by the rest of the national media, on Monday, ignoring Sri
Rohatgi’s bid to side-step the main issues, the three-member bench of
the Supreme Court remained focused on the modalities of setting up
designated courts for the trial of the accused in the post-Godhra riot
cases in Gujarat. Instead of highlighting the court proceedings, Sri
Mahapatra chose to spice up his report focusing not on the deliberations
or the intentions of the apex court but to promote the case of the
Gujarat government.
The moot question is whether or not 2,500 persons were killed in a
ghastly perpetrated massacre following the tragic burning alive of 59
persons on the Sabarmati express; whether or not ex parliamentarian
Ahsan Jafri was mutilated before being burnt alive, whether the bodies
of the missing dead (over 220) have not been found or returned for
dignified burial after seven long years? All the national media was
witness to this national tragedy.
In the interests of fair reportage and to ensure that the reputation of
a citizens group committed to equity and justice is not deliberately
vitiated before the trials commence, the media should carry this
rebuttal in full. A failure to do so will result in the columns of a
national newspaper being used to distort facts, shape public perception
and seek to influence the outcome of due process of law and justice to
the victims of mass murder.
(Statement by Citizens for Justice and Peace, Mumbai, April 14, 2009,
Mumbai)
We wish also that the following issues
Pertinent issues ignored in these reports:
The arrests of minister Dr Maya Kodnani and Dr Jaideep Patel in the past
weeks were on the basis of SIT re-investigations. Twelve FIRs filed by
witnesses naming these accused in 2002 had been clubbed into a magnum
FIR by the Ahmedabad crime branch that had dropped the names of these
powerful accused;
The arrests of investigating officer KG Erda in the Gulberg case and of
other policemen in the other cases over the past months has meant the
claims of witness survivors and legal rights groups, prima facie, are valid;
That this was one of the issues why the apex court has chosen to appoint
SIT, the full scale subversion of the process of justice, from the
removal of names of accused who’s names appeared in earlier statements
simply because they enjoyed political patronage; the appointment of
prosecutors with allegiances to the BJP and VHP which meant instead of
promoting fair trial they sided with the politically powerful and
protected accused;
More pertinently the tragic slaying of pregnant Kauser Bano at Naroda
Patiya after slitting her womb was reported in Deccan Herald,(April 17,
2004) and The Indian Express, (March 23, 2005) among others apart from
finding place in innumerable reports including the one authored by the
Concerned Citizens Tribunal-Crimes Against Humanity 2002 headed by two
Supreme Court judges, Justices Krishna Iyer and PB Sawant. Similarly the
British national case was similarly documented apart from being covered
in The Pioneer, March 3, 2002 and The Hindu, April 23, 2002.
Trustees:
Teesta Setalvad, I.M. Kadri, Arvind Krishnaswamy, Javed Akhtar, Cyrus
Guzder, Alyque Padamsee, Anil Dharker, Nandan Maluste, Javed Anand,
Rahul Bose, Cedric Prakash
---
2.
Press Statement on Tendentious Reporting in Media
We are deeply disturbed by the tendentious reports in the media of the
Supreme Court proceedings on April 13 dealing with the SIT report on the
Gujarat carnage of 2002.
This unhealthy trend in the media reporting is going to seriously
compromise the credibility of the media and undermine "freedom of
expression" enjoyed by the media which we all cherish.
An impression being created in a section of the media that the former
CBI director R K Raghvan who led the SIT has "told" the court that
Teesta Setalvad "cooked up macabre tales of wanton killing" is
mischievious. Only the Supreme Court, the amicus curiae and the Gujarat
government have access to the report. The SIT has not filed any other
document in court to which the media has access nor was Mr. Raghvan in
the Court. It is therefore obvious that the media is only uncritically
reporting what the Gujarat government’s lawyer said in the note
liberally distributed to the press outside the Court.
While the Supreme Court observed that there was no room for allegations
and counter allegations at this late stage, the media coverage has
brazenly flouted this observation by reporting the totally baseless
allegations against social activist Teesta Setalvad and the organisation
she represents Citizen for Justice and Peace on the basis of the Gujarat
government’s note circulated in the Court. This is all the more
reprehensible because Teesta Setalvad and Citizen for Justice and Peace
have neither been given a copy of the SIT report nor has their response
been sought in the matter.
The proceedings in the Supreme Court related to the response of the
Gujarat government and the amicus curiae Shri Harish Salve to the SIT
report. The very fact that the Supreme Court had to set up the SIT to
correct the miscarriage of justice due to the tardy investigation by the
state of Gujarat was highlighted in the court’s observation that but for
the SIT investigation many more accused, who were freshly added, would
not have been brought to book. It was the untiring efforts of Teesta
Setalvad and the CJP and the National Human Rights Commission that
persuaded the Supreme Court to set up the SIT and on the basis of its
findings further arrests have been made of persons who held
administrative and ministerial positions in the government of Gujarat.
M.K.Raina
for
SAHMAT