SOUTH ASIA
SC Suspends Sajjan Kumar’s Trial In 1984 Riots Case
New Delhi: The Supreme Court Wednesday suspended the trial of Congress leader Sajjan Kumar for his alleged involvement in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots that took place in the aftermath of then prime minister Indira Gandhi’s assassination.
An apex court bench of the Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice B.S. Chauhan stayed the trial court proceedings till July 27 on Sajjan Kumar’s petition challenging a high court order.
The Delhi High Court had directed the trial court not to pronounce any verdict in the case but allowed the proceedings to go on.
The high court July 3, while directing the listing of the matter July 27, said: “It is expected that the additional sessions judge will not pronounce the final judgment in the case during the pendency of the present petition.”
The apex court order said: “Considering the fact that the high court has to hear all the parties in the revision, we direct the trial judge not to proceed till July 27. All the parties are at liberty to put forth their respective claim/stand before the high court on July 27 and the high court is free to pass appropriate orders as to continuance of the interim protection beyond July 27. Inasmuch as the matter has a long history, we request the high court to dispose of the revision (petition) either way at an early date without further adjournment.”
Appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation, counsel D.P. Singh and Trannum Cheema described Sajjan Kumar’s plea as an attempt to delay the proceedings. “This is nothing but an effort to delay,” said a CBI counsel.
The CBI counsel told the court that in August 2010, the trial court was asked to complete the trial within six months. Then it was asked to wrap up the proceedings in one year which ended September 2011.
Sajjan Kumar has challenged the refusal by the trial court to present the evidence that was tendered by one of the victims and key witness, Jagdish Kaur, before the Justice Ranganath Commission and the Justice Nanavati Commission which probed the riots.
The trial court June 2 declined Sajjan Kumar’s plea to allow the use of the statements and affidavits of the complainant for cross examining her.
Sajjan Kumar’s plea was opposed by the investigating agency which contended that Jagdish Kaur’s deposition before the commission of inquiries could not be used in the trial court proceedings.
SOUTH ASIA
Pakistani Anti-graft body wants travel ban on Nawaz Sharif, kin
Pakistan’s anti-corruption watchdog has asked authorities to place ousted premier Nawaz Sharif, his daughter and son-in-law on the Exit Control List to prevent them from leaving the country.
The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) sent a formal request to the ministry of interior. The interior ministry officials confirmed that the NAB wrote that names of Sharif, his daughter Maryam Nawaz and son-in-law Capt (retd) Muhammad Safdar should be put on the Exit Control List (ECL), which listed individuals not allowed to leave Pakistan.
The NAB argued that as the trial of the three nears its conclusion, it is feared that they would leave the country.
Earlier, a similar request to place name of finance minister Ishaq Dar on ECL was not accepted, allowing him to go to London and never return.
Sharif, 68, and his family this week filed an application with the accountability court seeking a fortnight’s exemption from personal appearance from February 19 onwards to let them go to London to see Sharif’s ailing wife. Three cases were filed against Sharif and his family last year, including Avenfield properties, Azizia & Hill Metal Establishment, and Flagship Investments.
Maryam and Safdar are accused only in Avenfield properties case. The NAB had filed two supplementary references against Sharif, his sons Hasan and Hussain regarding Al-Azizia Steel Mills & Hill Metal Establishment and Flagship Investment cases.
SOUTH ASIA
Pakistan “breaches obligations’ on nuclear arms reduction, UN court told
The Hague: Pakistan is violating its “obligations” to the international community by failing to reduce its nuclear arsenal, the Marshall Islands told the UN’s highest court on Tuesday.
The small Pacific Island nation is this week launching three unusual cases against India, Pakistan and Britain before the International Court of Justice.
Majuro wants to put a new spotlight on the global nuclear threat, its lawyers said yesterday, by using its own experience with massive US-led nuclear tests in the 1940s and 1950s.
“Pakistan is in breach of its obligations owed to the international community as a whole,” when it comes to reducing its nuclear stockpile, said Nicholas Grief, one of the island nation’s lawyers.
DeBrum warned that even a “limited nuclear war” involving the two countries would “threaten the existence” of his island nation people.
Pakistan and India have fought three wars since independence from Britain in 1947, two of them over the disputed Himalayan territory of Kashmir.
In 1998, the rival neighbours both demonstrated nuclear weapons capability.
The ICJ’s judges are holding hearings for the next week and a half to decide whether it is competent to hear the lawsuits brought against India and Pakistan — neither of which have signed the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
A third hearing against Britain — which has signed the NPT — scheduled to start on Wednesday will be devoted to “preliminary objections” raised by London.
The Marshalls initially sought to bring a case against nine countries it said possessed nuclear arms: Britain, China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia and the United States.
Israel has never admitted to having nuclear weapons.
But the Hague-based ICJ, set up in 1945 to rule in disputes between states, has only admitted three cases against Britain, India and Pakistan, because they have accepted the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction.
Pakistan’s lawyers did not attend Tuesday’s hearings.
It did however file a counter-claim against Majuro’s allegations saying “the court has no jurisdiction to deal with the application” and insisting that the case is “not admissible”, said ICJ President Ronny Abraham.
SOUTH ASIA
Bangladesh to drop Islam as official religion following attacks on Hindus
New Delhi: Bangladesh is likely to drop Islam as its official religion following a series of attacks on people from other faiths in the country. The country’s Supreme Court is hearing a plea challenging the status of the official religion of the country to Islam.
Bangladesh, which was declared a secular country after its formation in 1971, was declared an Islamic country following a constitutional amendment in 1988.
According to a report in the Daily Mail, the plea has challenged the declaration of Islam as the national religion of the country.
The move is being supported by leaders from the minority communities like Hindus, Christians and Muslim minority Shiites.
Bangladesh has 90 per cent of Muslims, 8 per cent Hindus and remaining constitutes Christians and Muslim minority Shiites.
In last month, a Hindu priest was hacked to death following an attack on a temple in Panchgarh district. Two others were seriously injured in the attack. There have been several lethal attacks on writers and bloggers.
According to a report in the Independent, Islamist groups Jumatul Mujahedeen Bangladesh and Ansarullah Bangla Team are believed to have carried out at least seven attacks on foreign and minority people in Bangladesh in the past year.
