news details |
|
|
| ET stands vindicated -- III | | In a hopeless situation judiciary came to the rescue of CRPF | | RUSTAM
EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Jan 18: Another fundamental reason that compelled the petitioners to seek the intervention of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court was the virtual refusal of the Commission of Inquiry to supply the certified copies/photo copies of the relevant papers, including documents/depositions/affidavits etc. on the basis of which the Commission of Inquiry reached a "prima facie conclusion" that the CRPF was involved in the incidents of firing and issued notice to the CRPF on December 21, 2010. Their argument was that it was impossible for them to rebut the charges unless they examined the said records. The refusal on the part of the Commission of Inquiry to supply to the petitioners the certified copies of the relevant records was, according to the petitioners, a serious violation of Section 10 of the Commission of Inquiry Act read with Rule 9 of the Commission of Inquiry Rules.
It needs to be noted that immediately after receiving the notice the CRPF's Counsel Bhupinder Singh Slathia requested the Commission of Inquiry to supply them certified copies/photo copies of all the relevant documents so that they could prepare their response and rebut the charges, but with no result. The Commission on December 30 refused to supply the same. It said the "duly appointed/nominated representative of CRPF" could, if he so liked, "inspect the relevant documents/papers/statements, oral or documentary within two days i.e., 31st December 2010 and 1st January 2011." It also said that the "CRPF can take up the matter of getting reports, documents and other material with the learned Standing Counsel of J&K Government (Riaz Huissain).
Thereafter, the concerned CRPF Commandants visited the office of the Commission of Inquiry at Dalgate, Srinagar, and requested the Secretary to the Commission to "allow them to inspect the concerned files pertaining to the CRPF," but, again, with no result except that a few documents were read in their presence. On the contrary, they were told that "most of the statements and documents were in Urdu." The entire process was over within a span of two hours. However, the Commission's official asked the concerned Commandants to visit the Commission's office the next day, Sunday, to have more information. The Commandants went to the Commission's office on Sunday but found the office closed and locked. Not just this, one of the Commandants wrote a letter to the standing Counsel requesting him to provide copies of the documents to him as per the order issued by the Commission, but nothing came out. Instead, the Standing Counsel responded saying that "no reports, documents etc. are available with him as the same had already been produced/submitted before the Hon'ble Commission."
The story didn't end here. On January 6, the Standing Counsel was again approached, who only provided copies of two status reports. As for the remaining and crucial documents, including the statements of as many as 50 witnesses and affidavits etc., the Standing Counsel asked the petitioners to obtain the same from the Commission. Convinced that the Standing Counsel would not do the needful, the petitioners again approached the Commission on January 8 and sought more time for filing their response and requested it to supply the copies of all the relevant records. The Commission did grant them time till January 24 but stick to its December 30 order. "We are only to reiterate that duly appointed/nominated representatives of the Forces or the Advocates shall be free to inspect the relevant papers, including the documents/depositions/affidavits etc. on record of each of the file under reference so far as it concerns the CRPF, paramilitary forces, in any case well in advance before the Commission on Jan. 24, 2011. The Secretary of the Commission shall make available the record for the purpose at Jammu office. The matter shall also come up on 24 of Jan. 2011."
Left with no other option, the CRPF's Counsel BS Slathia again applied for the certified copy of the said order (Order passed on January 11, 2011) passed by the commission of Inquiry on "double cost", but the "Commission refused to entertain the application."
All this suggested nothing but an attempt on the part of the Commission of Inquiry to condemn the CRPF unheard. So, it was only after the petitioners reached the conclusion that the Commission of Inquiry had failed to adopt a fair and impartial approach that they knocked at the doors of the High court and demanded removal of the Chairman of the Commission and disbanding of the Commission of Inquiry.
That Justice Sunil Hali admitted the petition filed by the aggrieved CRPF and issued directions to the Commission of Inquiry that it must supply the petitioners the copies of all the relevant records and that it should not submit its final report without the "permission of this Court" does prove that the petitioners had a definite case against the Commission of Inquiry. And, that Justice Hali took a cognizance of their case once again establishes that in a hopeless situation as it prevails across the country it is the judiciary that is playing the role it should play without fear or favour. It would be only appropriate to say that it is the judiciary that has come to the rescue of the otherwise helpless CRPF. Judiciary is our last hope, notwithstanding some aberrations here and there. (Concluded) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
