In the next election whichever political party gets elected even then the worst condition of Bharat and Hindus will not change. To bring the change we have to continue our efforts for the establishment of Hindu Rashtra. - Dr. Athavle...When Governments consistently fail, it is Hindus who must get ready !...H.H.Dr. Jayant Athavale(Sanatan Sanstha)....There is no counter terror strategy except the one I have given in the DNA article...Dr. Swamy....Hindu vote must consolidate with those others who accept Hindu ancestry for a virat Hindustani sarkar...Dr.Swamy

Dr. Subramanian Swamy in support of Sant Shri Asaram Bapu

SC rejects Centre’s ‘Lakshman Rekha’ take on 2G scam

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today rejected the Centre’s plea that the apex court should not cross the ‘Lakshman Rekha’ to pass order on the plea seeking probe against Home Minister P Chidambaram in 2G scam.
“You are referring to Lakshman Rekha. If Sita had not crossed the Lakshman Rekha then Ravana would not have been killed. Lakshman Rekha was crossed and the demons were killed. Lakshman Rekha is not so sacrosanct. People are fond of saying so,” a bench of justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly said.
Supreme Court of India. Reuters
The court’s remark came after senior advocate P P Rao, appearing for the Centre, contended that monitoring jurisdiction of the apex court came to end after charge sheet was filed by the CBI in the 2G scam in April this year and the bench should not cross the ‘Lakshman Rekha’ by entertaining Janta Party president Subramanian Swamy plea against Chidambaram.
“It is well settled that the task of monitoring by the apex court would come to an end the moment the charge sheet was filed and thereafter ordinary process of law would take place,” Rao said adding that such petition is not maintainable in the apex court and Swamy should approach the Special CBI court which is holding the trial in the case.
The bench then questioned Rao on why the concept of court monitoring in cases has come into existence at all.
“Why this concept of monitoring at all. Till Vineet Narayan case (1996) there was no court monitoring. Why then it has become necessary now?” the bench asked.
Rao replied that it was a part of evolution of law and law evolves according to necessity.
The bench then said that it has evolved because of emerging corruption and lack of proper investigation by the agency in many cases.
“Court monitoring is because of widespread malice. Is it not so? These types of cases were not in past,” the bench said.
Source : PTI

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.