|
Online edition of India's National Newspaper Saturday, July 07, 2001 |
|
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Entertainment |
Miscellaneous |
Features |
Classifieds |
Employment |
Index |
Home |
|
National
| Previous
| Next
Panel rejects plea for unedited Tehelka tapes
By J. Venkatesan
NEW DELHI, JULY 6. The Justice K. Venkataswami Commission today
rejected as ``premature'' the plea of some of the parties for the
supply of unedited tapes of the `Tehelka' expose as well as the
transcript and copies of the statement of facts filed before the
Commission.
Mr. Justice Venkataswami in his order said ``the supply of
unedited tapes consisting of 100 hours is not only not
practicable but also not advisable. The request for the supply of
unedited tapes, the transcripts thereof and also statements of
other notices is premature and to certain extent anticipates
issuance of notice under Section 8 (b) of the Act (for cross
examination).''
It was submitted that natural justice required that the unedited
tapes, which were the basis of the allegations, be made available
to those who were issued notice so that they could put forth
their defence properly.
However, the Additional Solicitor-General, Mr. Kirit Rawal,
counsel for the Union Government, opposed such a demand stating
that there was no need for supply of unedited tapes before
issuance of the notice under Section 8 (b). An application by a
senior Army officer that the Commission should issue a direction
to the Court of Inquiry not to proceed further was withdrawn when
the Commission observed that such a plea could not be
entertained.
Mr. Justice Venkataswami said ``the officer had been asked to
only bring to the notice of the Commission the facts known to him
relating to the expose. There is no compulsion for him to
disclose his defence at this stage.''
Col. Sehgal and other Army officials facing departmental inquiry
in matters pertaining to Tehelka expose had contended that no
person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself and hence they should not be compelled to adduce
evidence before the Commission.
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail
|
|
Section : National Previous : Reliance company withdraws bid for cellular licence Next : Pressure groups write to PM, Musharraf | |
|
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Entertainment |
Miscellaneous |
Features |
Classifieds |
Employment |
Index |
Home | |
|
Copyrights © 2001 The Hindu Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu |
|