Wednesday, Jan 08, 2003
Wednesday, Jan 08, 2003 |
| Front Page | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Front Page
By Anjali Mody
In the trial court, the prosecutor said today that the MI's opinion was "irrelevant" and "without authority" as the opinion was sought from the Director-General of Military Operations and not from the MI. But the trial judge, Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, said this claim had no basis. In her order, she said that the prosecution had presented no such communication to substantiate its case, and, in fact, the Joint Commissioner of Police, Neeraj Kumar, had confirmed to the court the receipt of the letter dated December 12 last from the MI. Ms. Dhingra Sehgal said that since the "the prosecution is avoiding to give a specific reply regarding the letter dated 12.12.2002, it is presumed that some request must have been made to the DGMI, after direction of the Sessions Court". It was, therefore, "once again necessary" to summon the Director-General of Military Intelligence and the Joint Commissioner of Police. Last month, the DGMI, O.S. Lochab, had told the court that the MI's opinion dated December 12 was authorised and correct. The argument made on behalf of the Government is particularly interesting since the Home Ministry declared the MI's opinion as "untenable" on December 26 and on completely different grounds. The minutes of a meeting held in the Ministry on December 26, a copy of which is with The Hindu, concluded that the DGMI's opinion was "based on the presumption that the information is in a printed publication", making its conclusion invalid. At the meeting, chaired by the Special Secretary, A. K. Bhandari, and attended, among others, by the Additional Director-General Military Intelligence, Major General Amrik Singh, the minutes said: "It was felt that the DGMI is required to give his opinion having regard to the nature of the information contained in the documents, irrespective of its source. In this case, the contention that the information is in the public domain was examined by the Government before according prosecution sanction on 5.9.2002. The contents of both the documents being the same, the nature of the information continues to be prejudicial to the safety and security of the country. Hence, it was decided that the second opinion was not tenable." The Hindu asked the Home Secretary, N. Gopalaswami, and the Special Secretary, A. K. Bhandari, the basis of their assessment. Mr. Gopalaswami said: "There are reasons for it... we can discuss it later." Mr. Bhandari, who first denied knowledge of the meeting, then said the question should be put to the MI. Presented with a copy of the minutes, he insisted that the conclusion was valid. Asked if there was something particularly problematic about Mr. Gilani possessing the document, he did not comment. Would the Government consider initiating prosecutions against others — including journalists and public-funded libraries — which possessed the same document? He said, "yes we may... if it is inimical." Mr. Gilani was arrested in June last year, and charged with offences under the Official Secrets Act for possessing a copy of a published article dealing with India's military positions in Jammu and Kashmir. The MI, in June last year, claimed that possession of this information was a grave threat to national security. On December 12, 2002, the MI said that its early assessment was "erroneous" and that it was "obvious that this document carries no security classified information and the information seems to have been gathered from open sources". The Deputy Prime Minister, L.K. Advani, has, at various points of time in the last two months, told mediapersons that the Government believed there was no basis for Mr. Gilani's continued incarceration and that he should be granted bail.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | Home |
Copyright © 2003, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
