Criticised for seeking to distinguish between the 1984 anti-Sikh riots and the 2002 Gujarat riots, JNUSU president Kanhaiya Kumar was forced to clarify. Here’s what he said.
A day after JNUSU president Kanhaiya Kumar’s controversial remarks claiming there was a difference between the 1984 riots and the 2002 riots, his colleagues in the Left have expressed their disagreement.
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul transferred the case from Karkardooma court to Patiala House court.
CBI took this stand in a submission filed a local court which had listed the case for pronouncement of order on whether to accept the agency’s closure report.
On Sunday, Phoolka claimed that Harsimrat Badal had never raised the issue of Jadish Tytler and Sajjan Kumar in the cabinet.
Kejriwal along with his Deputy Manish Sisodia distributed the enhanced compensation cheques of Rs 5 lakh to the kin of each of the 1,300 people killed in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots.
Thirty-one years later, they were all going to receive enhanced compensation cheques for Rs 5 lakh from the Delhi government.
Manjit Singh invoked history to justify the decision of the high priests.
Sheela Kaur’s husband Balveer Singh and her father-in-law were killed in the riots.
The plea said it was “highly unfortunate that the CBI is able to trace only those witnesses who are deposing in Tytler’s favour”.
In addition to speaking with the victims of the violence, Suri has also included interviews with the police officers who were policing when the actual violence was taking place.
CBI had claimed Tytler was not present at the gurudwara during the riots and was rather at Teen Murti House.
The group demanded reopening the case against Jagdish Tytler, who has been given a clean chit by the CBI.
The court directive comes in a case where the CBI has given a clean chit to Tytler, third time in a row.
Arvind Kejriwal had recommended setting up an SIT to probe the anti-Sikh riot cases.