Tuesday,
July 29, 2003, Chandigarh, India
|
Liberhan panel calls
Kalyan New Delhi, July 28 Describing him as a “pivotal witness” while allowing the applications of the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and a Muslim citizen for summoning Mr Kalyan Singh, Justice M. S. Liberhan said his deposition was crucial to finding the truth about the demolition of the disputed structure at Ayodhya and the alleged conspiracy behind it. He has been directed to appear before the panel on August 7 and 8 to record his statement. The summoning of Mr Kalyan Singh was sought in the wake of his recent public statements accusing Mr Vajpayee, Mr Advani, Human Resource Development Minister Murli Manohar Joshi and other top Sangh Parivar leaders of hatching a “conspiracy” to demolish the mosque. “There can be no doubt that Mr Kalyan Singh is a pivotal witness, especially in the context of rumours of reports about a conspiracy (to demolish the mosque),” the commission in its 18-page order recorded. It further said if the rumours or reports about the alleged conspiracy were correct, it had to be found who were the persons behind it and the statement of Mr Kalyan Singh, who was at the helm of affairs in Uttar Pradesh when the incident took place on December 6, 1992, was required to be recorded. The commission said to place facts before Parliament to enable the government to take appropriate action in this regard, it was necessary to summon him in public interest and subserve the cause of justice in the wake of his recent media statements about the alleged conspiracy. While the AIMPLB had sought that Mr Kalyan Singh be summoned in the wake of his statements against Mr Vajpayee, Mr Advani, Mr Joshi and others, Muslim citizen Mohd Aslam, alias Bhure, had sought the summoning of Mr Vajpayee and re-summoning of Mr Advani. However, the panel rejected Mr Bhure’s petition, holding that no purpose would be served by calling them to depose at this stage. It pointed out that Mr Advani had already recorded his lengthy statement before the panel, and had been cross-examined by counsel from other parties, therefore, there was no fresh need to summon him. |
| Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir | Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs | Nation | Editorial | | Business | Sport | World | Mailbag | Chandigarh Tribune | Ludhiana Tribune 50 years of Independence | Tercentenary Celebrations | | 123 Years of Trust | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |