Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 150
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 151
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Gulbarg massacre report access for Zakia

Gulbarg massacre report access for Zakia

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Feb 16, 2012   modified Modified on Feb 16, 2012
-The Telegraph

A local court today directed the special investigation team probing the Gujarat riots to submit a complete report on the Gulbarg society massacre within a month but restricted its access to only the original complainant.

Metropolitan magistrate M.S. Bhatt said Zakia Jafri — whose husband, former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri, was among 69 people killed on February 28, 2002,— would be given a certified copy, but not the other petitioners, among them an NGO led by activist Teesta Setalvad.

The magistrate said they had no locus standi in the case, upholding the argument of the Supreme Court-appointed SIT, which had argued against sharing the report.

Apart from Setalvad’s Citizen for Justice and Peace, the others refused are the NGO Jan Sangharsh Manch (JSM) and another petitioner.

Setalvad, however, welcomed the order. “It is a huge victory for us as the primary complainant will get the report. It is a huge step forward,” she said.

The court directed the SIT to submit by March 15 every relevant document pertaining to the 1,700-page report it submitted earlier this month.

Although the report that the SIT submitted last week was in a sealed cover, sources said it was merely a gist.

“We have not brought all the annexures and evidence before the court as we felt there would not be enough space and security to keep the documents,” SIT counsel S.C. Jamuvar had said.

The report is crucial for Narendra Modi, though there is speculation that the chief minister has been cleared of all charges, apparently because there is no “prosecutable evidence” against him.

Contempt notice

Gujarat High Court today issued a contempt notice to the Modi government for failing to compensate 56 minority residents whose shops were destroyed during the riots.

The notice came a week after the high court ordered the BJP government to fund the repair of nearly 600 religious structures that were targeted during the riots, the worst in Independent India.

Following a petition by the victims, a bench of Justices Akil Kureshi and C.L. Soni asked the Ahmedabad district collector to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated. The collector has to reply by March 14.

The shops, in Ahmedabad’s Rakhial area, were set on fire in the post-Godhra riots. After the Centre announced an additional relief package for victims in February 2008, the shop owners had applied for compensation.

However, there was no response from the Ahmedabad district collectorate, following which the shop owners, through the JSM, had approached the high court seeking a directive to the collector to consider their applications and compensate them.

Based on the applications, the court had passed an order in September 2011, directing the collector to examine them and do the needful.

But this month, the shop owners received a communication from the collector’s office saying all 56 applications were dismissed in August 2011. They then filed the contempt petition.

The Telegraph, 16 February, 2012, http://telegraphindia.com/1120216/jsp/nation/story_15141344.jsp


Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close