Prajapati killing, Amar Singh cases to figure in apex courtBy IANS
Sunday, February 13, 2011
NEW DELHI - The Supreme Court this week is expected to focus on the closely-followed cases related to the 2006 killing of Tulsiram Prajapati, a witness in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh staged shootout case in Gujarat, and the unauthorised tapping of Rajya Sabha member and former Samajwadi Party leader Amar Singh’s telephones.
The court Thursday is likely to hear a petition by Narmada Bai, mother of Prajapati, who was allegedly gunned down by police as he was believed to be a key witness in the 2005 abduction and killing of Sheikh.
The apex court bench of Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice B.S. Chauhan will take up her petition seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the killing of her son in an alleged staged shootout Dec 26, 2006.
The CBI too has told the apex court that the killings of Sheikh and Prajapti were inter-linked and the investigation into the Prajapati case too should be handed over to it.
According to the CBI, the needle of suspicion pointed to the involvement of former Gujarat minister of state for home affairs Amit Shah.
The petitioner sought the shifting of the case to another bench but the plea was opposed by the Gujarat government.
The Amar Singh tapes case, which started with his petition alleging political vendetta by United Progressive Alliance-I, government, has snowballed into a major question of national security and the accountability of private telecom companies.
The concern of the apex court found expression when Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly described the situation extremely dangerous”. Unwittingly it is becoming a larger issue in public domain, the court said.
On Monday, senior counsel C.A. Sundaram will argue on behalf of the telecom service provider involved. He will answer questions related to the failure of the companys officers in distinguishing a fake communication from a genuine one. The fake communication formed the basis of tapping the politician’s phone.
The court took exception to the manner in which spelling mistakes and grammatical errors in the fake communication were not taken cognizance of by officials of the service provider.