Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Aug 10, 2007
ePaper
Google



Opinion
News: ePaper | Front Page | National | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh | Karnataka | Kerala | New Delhi | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous | Engagements |
Advts:
Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary |

Opinion - Letters to the Editor Printer Friendly Page   Send this Article to a Friend

Mumbai blasts verdict

While welcoming the verdict on the Mumbai serial bomb blasts case, one wonders why no action has been taken against the perpetrators and conspirators of the crime that led to the blasts — the demolition of the Babri Masjid. Had a verdict been delivered on the demolition prior to the disposal of the blasts case, fair play and justice would have been upheld.

A. Akbar Sheriff,
Tiruchi

It will be the height of hypocrisy if the action taken on the report of the Srikrishna Commission of inquiry that went into the Mumbai riots of 1992 is not reviewed.

Justice in the Babri Masjid demolition case should also be rendered as quickly as possible.

A. Krishnamurthy,
Chennai

Ever since India became independent, many committees have been constituted for the purpose of investigation or suggesting some reforms. But their findings hardly get the attention they deserve.

Reports gather dust until such time as political rivals use them to settle scores. Can our politicians and governments tell us why committees are instituted at the cost of the common man’s hard earned money when their findings do not matter at all (as in the case of Srikrishna Commission report)?

Shashikant Singh,
Roorkee

A plethora of opinions has been expressed on Sanjay Dutt’s six-year sentence for illegal possession of arms. This is because Sanjay is a celebrity. But public review of judicial pronouncements need not be discouraged provided there is no transgression of propriety in terms of attributing unsubstantiated motives. The adage ‘a person is known by the company he keeps’ applies to Sanjay Dutt. But if he has reformed himself, a lenient view could be taken of his crime under the law of the land.

R. Vijaykumar,
Chennai

Sanjay is not a criminal. He never made common cause with those who masterminded the blasts. The verdict established that his celebrity status did not influence his case. The difference of opinion is only over the quantum of punishment given to him. The guiding principle of punishment is to make the convict repent and reform. Sanjay remained in prison for 16 months after his arrest and complied with every directive of the court during the 14 long years of trial. He admitted that he made a mistake. Every law is simultaneously rigid and flexible and its application depends on many factors including a convict’s background and history.

M.C. Joshi,
Lucknow

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail



Opinion

News: ePaper | Front Page | National | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh | Karnataka | Kerala | New Delhi | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous | Engagements |
Advts:
Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary | Updates: Breaking News |


News Update


The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription
Group Sites: The Hindu | The Hindu ePaper | Business Line | Business Line ePaper | Sportstar | Frontline | Publications | eBooks | Images | Home |

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu