Union Minister Kiren Rijiju on Saturday accused P Chidamabarm of “changing” an affidavit filed in connection with the encounter killing of Ishrat Jahan alleging the former Home Minister had brushed aside the intelligence inputs that suggested that the Mumbra girl had terrorist links.
“When the first affidavit was filed, if the content needs to be changed there must be some basis. There must be some point because of which the need to change the affidavit is required.
“But in this case when Chidambaram has all of a sudden decided to brush aside all the intelligence inputs and a fresh affidavit to be filed giving a clean chit to a terrorist, this is such a serious matter that we can’t just throw it away.
- Ishrat Jahan ‘encounter’ case: Ex-Gujarat DGP P P Pandey discharged by CBI court
- BJP targets Sonia Gandhi, says she ‘suppressed’ info on Ishrat Jahan
- Chidambaram changed Ishrat affidavit due to ‘undue pressure’: Kiren Rijiju
- Ishrat Jahan case: BJP cites role of Chidambaram, Manmohan Singh in changing affidavit
- From Express Archives: R V S Mani affidavits tell how he was ‘coerced’
- Congress defeat in state bypolls made Centre revise Ishrat Jahan affidavit,says BJP
“The origin of the change of the affidavit was P Chidamabarm. I have stated earlier also that the Home Minister of India, who is in-charge of the security of this nation, if goes ahead to the extent of giving a clean chit to a terrorist, it is a very serious matter,” Rijiju, Union Minister of State for Home, said.
He added “how the Home Minister and the Home Secretary are in so much of divergent position” that there is a de-link of some critical papers, that is to be seen.
“We would like to know if the Law Ministry was really involved that is why the papers, documents which are missing will give us a very critical lead information about all the inferences that we have drawn,” he said.
Chidambaram has already accused the Modi government of creating a “fake controversy” over the two affidavits filed in the case.
“The report caused an uproar in Gujarat and elsewhere. The first affidavit was misinterpreted and misused to defend the encounter. It was, therefore, necessary to clarify the first affidavit.
“Hence, a ‘further affidavit’ was filed on September 29, 2009) clarifying that intelligence inputs ‘do not constitute conclusive proof and it is for the state government and the state police to act on such inputs’,” he had said.