Too long already.
There is zero room for regionalism on this issue.
A PM does not belong to any party.
That was an act of of fkin war against and on India.
Cheers, Doc
Rajiv Gandhi assassination: No mercy for ex-PM killers, Centre tells SC
- Thread starter Hindustani78
- Start date
Too long already.
There is zero room for regionalism on this issue.
A PM does not belong to any party.
That was an act of of fkin war against and on India.
Cheers, Doc
Dash
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2009
- Messages
- 6,652
- Reaction score
- -14
- Country
- Location
Tamilnadu is a little different. And you know I guess you know, that what we’re the geopolitics that time and what we are reaping from that even today.
Some things are always expendable. You get one expendable applies to both parties and just watch how things unfold.
The biggest gainer of this were those parties that time.
It’s not yet time to put an end to it.
E.g., veerapan was one of them but he was not expendable enough to live long.
I do not understand why Tamil Nadu should be different?
Were Sikhs children if a lesser God that the killers of Indira got instant justice?
Complete bullcrap that makes my friggin blood boil to be honest.
Cheers, Doc
Dash
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2009
- Messages
- 6,652
- Reaction score
- -14
- Country
- Location
Let’s be careful here about what borders we are touching here.
Take google earth and figure. And like I said i will not go into details.
There is nothing to figure.
The Tamils need to suck it up.
Morons from among them declared war on India.
India fed their brothers across the sea to the dogs.
Blunt enough I guess.
Cheers, Doc
Hindustani78
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,471
- Reaction score
- -47
- Country
- Location
https://www.thehindu.com/news/natio...s-says-former-policewoman/article24950213.ece
Former policewoman had tried to stop assassin from approaching the former PM
Anusuya Daisy Ernest, now a retired police officer, would never forget that terrible moment on the night of May 21, 1991 in Sriperumpudur when a ‘human bomb’ killed former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and 15 others, including a Superintendent of Police.
Ms. Ernest, then a sub-inspector, was one of those who survived the attack despite suffering grievous injuries. Seconds before the blast occurred, she had attempted to stop the assassin from approaching Mr. Gandhi.
The Tamil Nadu government’s decision to recommend the release of seven life convicts of the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case provoked the former police officer to come out openly against the move.
“I do not understand why they should be released. If they are serving a life sentence, let them serve it till the end. Am I not suffering disabilities, caused by the blast, for life? Are not family members of the police officials who died suffering permanent loss of their dear ones,” asked Ms. Ernest, who joined the service as a constable in 1981 and retired as Additional SP in Villupuram district in May 2018.
She said that after the blast, she had to struggle for her life in a hospital for three months. “The left side of my body was affected badly.
“Two fingers of my left hand were amputated immediately after I was admitted to a government hospital [in Chennai]. One finger was fixed through plastic surgery. I was operated upon several times to get pellets removed from my body,” she said.
Opinion of families
Asked why the convicts should not be treated with compassion, she said, “Why go by what the convicts’ advocates or supporters say? Why does no one seem to care for the opinion of the families of the deceased or injured?”
Ms. Ernest, who likes to spend her post-retirement days visiting churches, stressed that there was no need to show mercy to the convicts, who, according to her, had been involved in an “act of terrorism.”
Former policewoman had tried to stop assassin from approaching the former PM
Anusuya Daisy Ernest, now a retired police officer, would never forget that terrible moment on the night of May 21, 1991 in Sriperumpudur when a ‘human bomb’ killed former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and 15 others, including a Superintendent of Police.
Ms. Ernest, then a sub-inspector, was one of those who survived the attack despite suffering grievous injuries. Seconds before the blast occurred, she had attempted to stop the assassin from approaching Mr. Gandhi.
The Tamil Nadu government’s decision to recommend the release of seven life convicts of the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case provoked the former police officer to come out openly against the move.
“I do not understand why they should be released. If they are serving a life sentence, let them serve it till the end. Am I not suffering disabilities, caused by the blast, for life? Are not family members of the police officials who died suffering permanent loss of their dear ones,” asked Ms. Ernest, who joined the service as a constable in 1981 and retired as Additional SP in Villupuram district in May 2018.
She said that after the blast, she had to struggle for her life in a hospital for three months. “The left side of my body was affected badly.
“Two fingers of my left hand were amputated immediately after I was admitted to a government hospital [in Chennai]. One finger was fixed through plastic surgery. I was operated upon several times to get pellets removed from my body,” she said.
Opinion of families
Asked why the convicts should not be treated with compassion, she said, “Why go by what the convicts’ advocates or supporters say? Why does no one seem to care for the opinion of the families of the deceased or injured?”
Ms. Ernest, who likes to spend her post-retirement days visiting churches, stressed that there was no need to show mercy to the convicts, who, according to her, had been involved in an “act of terrorism.”
Hindustani78
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,471
- Reaction score
- -47
- Country
- Location
CHENNAI, November 04, 2018 08:07 IST
Updated: November 04, 2018 08:08 IST
The Government is likely to take up shortly the matter of release of seven convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case with Governor Banwarilal Purohit.
A communication to this effect, reiterating the government’s decision taken at the Cabinet meeting on September 9, might be sent after the Deepavali holidays, a source in the government said.
The Governor will also be requested to expedite the process of release of the convicts.
The letter may go from Additional Chief Secretary (Home) Niranjan Mardi to Additional Chief Secretary to the Governor R. Rajagopal, according to the source.
There is nothing new in the government’s position as Ministers, in recent weeks, have gone on record saying that the government had done its bit and it was for Mr. Purohit to act. They had also pointed out that there was nothing in law that set a time frame for the Governor to take a decision.
However, the position of Mr. Purohit is that he would not be able to act on the Cabinet’s recommendation during the pendency of a case in the Supreme Court, which challenges the State government’s 2014 decision to remit the sentences of the seven convicts.
The court, in mid-September, allowed the petitioners to file a revised petition in four weeks. Congress spokesperson Americai V. Narayanan, one of the petitioners and who had moved the court in his personal capacity, told The Hindu on Saturday: “Our petition is ready. As soon as the court indicates time for the next hearing, we will file the petition.”
Legal precedents
The proposed initiative of the government is also based on legal opinion obtained by the government. The opinion quotes the court’s verdict in the Maru Ram v Union of India case delivered in November 1980 and in Ramdeo Chauhan v Bani Kant Das case delivered exactly 30 years later.
The argument, as set out in the opinion, runs like this: The power of pardon, under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution, can be exercised by the Central and State governments and not by the President and the Governors on their own. Also, wherever the Constitution requires the satisfaction of the President and the Governors for the purpose of exercise of any power or function, it is not the personal satisfaction of the Governors or the President that matters but the satisfaction of the Council of Ministers.
All these aspects were likely to be captured in the communication of the government to be sent to the Governor’s office, the source added.
Updated: November 04, 2018 08:08 IST
The Government is likely to take up shortly the matter of release of seven convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case with Governor Banwarilal Purohit.
A communication to this effect, reiterating the government’s decision taken at the Cabinet meeting on September 9, might be sent after the Deepavali holidays, a source in the government said.
The Governor will also be requested to expedite the process of release of the convicts.
The letter may go from Additional Chief Secretary (Home) Niranjan Mardi to Additional Chief Secretary to the Governor R. Rajagopal, according to the source.
There is nothing new in the government’s position as Ministers, in recent weeks, have gone on record saying that the government had done its bit and it was for Mr. Purohit to act. They had also pointed out that there was nothing in law that set a time frame for the Governor to take a decision.
However, the position of Mr. Purohit is that he would not be able to act on the Cabinet’s recommendation during the pendency of a case in the Supreme Court, which challenges the State government’s 2014 decision to remit the sentences of the seven convicts.
The court, in mid-September, allowed the petitioners to file a revised petition in four weeks. Congress spokesperson Americai V. Narayanan, one of the petitioners and who had moved the court in his personal capacity, told The Hindu on Saturday: “Our petition is ready. As soon as the court indicates time for the next hearing, we will file the petition.”
Legal precedents
The proposed initiative of the government is also based on legal opinion obtained by the government. The opinion quotes the court’s verdict in the Maru Ram v Union of India case delivered in November 1980 and in Ramdeo Chauhan v Bani Kant Das case delivered exactly 30 years later.
The argument, as set out in the opinion, runs like this: The power of pardon, under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution, can be exercised by the Central and State governments and not by the President and the Governors on their own. Also, wherever the Constitution requires the satisfaction of the President and the Governors for the purpose of exercise of any power or function, it is not the personal satisfaction of the Governors or the President that matters but the satisfaction of the Council of Ministers.
All these aspects were likely to be captured in the communication of the government to be sent to the Governor’s office, the source added.
Similar threads
