SC pulls up CBI for saying Advani committed 'national crime'
- HSBC Indian list just doubled to 1195 names. Balance: Rs 25420 cr
- Manjhi expelled, Nitish stakes claim to form govt in Bihar
- Hanging of Afzal Guru was 'wrong' & 'badly' handled, says Shashi Tharoor
- Have given it my all, not nervous about result: Kiran Bedi
- Japanese girl allegedly raped by tourist guide in Jaipur
The Central Bureau of Investigation's submission in the Babri Masjid demolition case that senior BJP leader L K Advani and others had committed a 'national crime' drew a sharp reaction from the Supreme Court which asked the agency not to use such a language till the case is decided by the courts.
"Please don't say that it is a national crime or a matter of national importance. We are yet to decide it. Until we or trial court decide this way or other, you can't make such statements," a Bench headed by Justice H L Dattu said.
The Bench made the observations after senior advocate P P Rao, appearing for CBI, submitted that leaders of BJP and VHP were involved in a "national conspiracy" which was reflected in the Rath Yatra and its a case of "national crime".
Rao's submission came while challenging the verdicts of Special CBI court and Allahabad High Court dropping conspiracy charges against BJP leaders Advani, Kalyan Singh, Uma Bharti Vinay Katiyar and Murli Manohar Joshi.
The others against whom charges were dropped included Satish Pradhan, C R Bansal, Ashok Singhal, Giriraj Kishore, Sadhvi Ritambhara, V H Dalmia, Mahant Avaidhynath, R V Vedanti, Param Hans Ram Chandra Das, Jagdish Muni Maharaj, B L Sharma, Nritya Gopal Das, Dharam Das, Satish Nagar and Moreshwar Save.
During arguments, the bench also questioned the CBI over the delay in hearings before the special court and the filing of the appeal challenging the verdicts of the two courts.
"You said that it is a case of national importance. Then can you say that the translation (of court records) takes days and filing of case takes three months," the bench said.
The agency pleaded that it should be allowed to file a fresh affidavit to explain its stand but the bench turned it down and said no fresh affidavits or material will be allowed to be placed before it.