L E T T E R S    T O    T H E    E D I T O R

‘No interference with court proceedings’

Your editorial "Let the case proceed" (July 15) has made me feel happy after a long time because finally someone viewed the whole issue with neutral eyes. I fully agree with your opinion that logically I should cooperate with the judiciary which I have been doing. I have also been cooperating with the investigating agencies right from day one after Justice Nanavati tabled his report. But since I am not an accused, that is the only reason I approached the higher courts.

The decision of setting aside the closure report by the ASJ is an infringement of section 401(2) of the Cr.P.C. and I exercised my legal right to file a petition. It should not be misunderstood as interfering with the court proceedings.

The Nanavati Commission received 2,557 affidavits of which two mentioned my name. Two persons claimed themselves to be eye-witnesses of two different incidents. One of them claimed to see me addressing a crowd near the TB Hospital, Kingsway camp, on the night of 3rd November 1984. Any analysis of or reports on the 1984 riots will reveal that a curfew was imposed along with shoot-at-sight orders. Moreover, no incident of rioting was reported on or after 3rd November 1984. The story of this so-called witness had a number of loopholes which were exposed by the investigating agencies.

The other so-called witness had, before his death, submitted an affidavit to the court and the CBI under section 164 the Cr.P.C. that his signatures were obtained fraudulently by an advocate. He and his son also mentioned that he was constantly under life threat from the advocate.

Unfortunately, the media ignored a few points while reporting stories of my case. On 1st November 1984 Doordarshan was live telecasting the "antim darshan" of Indira Gandhi from Teen Murti which proved my presence there throughout the day. Secondly, before the Nanavati Commission, 10 inquiry commissions were set up and no affidavits against me were filed.

You mentioned in the editorial about the lack of conviction. Actually, two FIRs were lodged in connection with the Gurudwara Pul Bangash riot viz. 315/84 and 316/84. My name does not appear in any of the two FIRs. Thirteen of the accused persons in FIR 315/84 were convicted and one person was declared a proclaimed offender.

Jagdish Tytler, former Union Minister, New Delhi

Relief suggestions

Having personal experience in the relief operations during the 1957-58 floods in Bengal and then in Okhla (Delhi), I suggest to the government that it must build a road network afresh and the whole work must be given to the Border Road Organisation after having an aerial survey by the DGBR. A proposed new route may take many years. Moreover, we also need to create mule tracks, aerial ropeway, captive ferry, suspension bridge on steel bridges, baily/baily suspension bridges, etc in such areas.


I-T Department

The Income Tax Department, Chandigarh, has issued a letter to all Cooperative Banks to give the details of all depositors who are earning interest more than Rs 10,000 on their deposit accounts. But as per the understanding between the Indian Banks' Association (IBA) and the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), the Income Tax Department cannot collect such general information. They can collect information for only those persons whose cases are pending with them.

During 1987-88, the Income Tax Department had asked all the banks to submit certain general information regarding their depositors. The IBA then had taken up the matter with the CBDT and it was agreed that the I-T Department would not demand the general information from the banks and on the contrary, it would ask for information in connection with persons whose cases are pending with them.

RAJESH KUMAR, Ambala city

New Chandigarh: It's misleading

I congratulate The Tribune for kicking off a debate on New Chandigarh. It is sheer cheating. Renaming Mullanpur Garibdas, a village of Punjab, which is about a few kilometres from Chandigarh and falls in Mohali district, as New Chandigarh by the Punjab government is a case of deceiving the public as the name “New Chandigarh” gives the impression that it is an extension of the City Beautiful. But in reality, it is not so.

As Chandigarh is a Union Territory and the so-called New Chandigarh falls in Punjab, it is a malicious propaganda of the Punjab Government or Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal to hurt the feelings of the people of Chandigarh and other states. It is a cruel joke being played by the father-son duo of Punjab politics. This is highly condemnable and misleading. I request the Punjab and Haryana High Court to intervene in this matter and stop the Punjab government from misleading the public/investors by rechristening Mullanpur Garibdas as New Chandigarh.

R K KAPOOR, Chandigarh



HOME PAGE | Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir | Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs | Nation | Opinions |
| Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi |
| Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail |