David Headley naming Ishrat Jahan as a Lashkar-e-Taiba operative during his deposition on Thursday raised more questions than answers — not about his statement, but the manner in which he made the statement and its implications.
While legal eagles found fault in the statement being broadcast, former cops said there wasn’t any revelation really in what Headley said and pointed out that it did not make the alleged fake encounter killing justifiable.
And political parties, predictably, found in Headley’s statement the perfect opportunity to launch an attack at each other.
Law experts said a certain level of censorship was needed in dealing with such information. Retired judge AR Joshi of the Bombay High Court said, “In my view, it is highly objectionable to make such comments when the matter is sub judice. The prosecutor should not go to the press in matters like these and the judge should take cognizance of this”.
The questions that led to the statement, which in turn unleashed a blitzkrieg of reactions, also raised eyebrows. Saurav Datta, legal researcher and correspondent, said, “Ujjwal Nikam was incorrect in the way he dealt with the questioning. He gave Headley three options of the names of women who were actually never there in the charge-sheet, which means they were imaginary names, therefore no legal conclusion can be drawn out of it. Also as per Section 141 of the Indian Evidence Act, one cannot ask leading questions and if such questions are asked, the judge should put his foot down and not allow such line of questioning”.
Former top cops said there was no revelation really in what Headley said. Former Mumbai Police Commissioner Julio Ribeiro and former ATS chief KP Raghuvanshi said it was known that Ishrat Jahan was an LeT operative.
“We always knew Ishrat Jahan was an LeT operative and was involved in something big. It was unfortunate the way things turned out but we had no doubt from the beginning that she was with the LeT. Even the Intelligence Bureau had the same information. As far as the encounter is concerned, I am not competent enough to speak about it as it is already sub judice. However, it does seem that the probe in the case was unfair,” said Mr Raghuvanshi, who retired as Director General of Police. Mr Ribeiro echoed the same view. He said: “I was convinced even then that she was an LeT operative without him (Headley) saying it. But that doesn’t absolve them (the police) of the act (the alleged fake encounter). The police can’t be the judge and the executor.”
Though the Ishrat Jahan case is still in court, for political parties Headley’s statement carried the weight of a verdict.
The Bharatiya Janata Party demanded an inquiry of leaders of Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), including its chief Sharad Pawar, for extending support to her in the past.
BJP spokesperson Madhav Bhandari on Thursday said NCP leader Vasant Davkhare had given a cheque to Ishrat’s family, while NCP MLA Jitendra Awhad had claimed she was innocent. “Sharad Pawar had even openly said that she is innocent. There is a need to probe motives behind this,” he said.
NCP, however, reacted cautiously on Thursday saying Ishrat’s case is pending in the Supreme Court. “What we hear is Pakistani terrorist David Headley’s deposition and there is no need to reach to conclusion right away,” said party’s chief spokesperson Nawab Malik.
Mr Malik added that if indeed she was an LeT operative, it must be probed why was she killed in an encounter. “Had the police caught her alive, she could have given numerous details abut the LeT activities in India. What was the motive behind killing her in an encounter? Was it an attempt to suppress facts?” he asked.
Always knew Ishrat Jahan was involved in something big
Julio Ribeiro
Former Mumbai Police Commissioner
Motives of NCP leaders should be probed for supporting Ishrat
Madhav Bhandari
BJP spokesperson
