Dharmasthala mass burial case: SIT produces complainant witness in Belthangady court
Mangaluru: The Special Investigation Team (SIT) on Saturday produced the complainant witness in the Dharmasthala mass burial case before the Belthangady court after taking him into custody.
According to sources, the witness had earlier claimed to have exhumed one of the buried bodies and produced a human skull, allegedly belonging to it. However, during interrogation, he failed to clarify where the skull had been recovered from.
After prolonged questioning on Friday night, the witness reportedly admitted that the skull he submitted did not belong to the body he had buried. Following this revelation, SIT officials placed him under custody, unlike in previous instances when he was allowed to leave with his legal team.
The witness underwent a medical examination on Saturday morning before being produced in court.
Meanwhile, the SIT has so far carried out exhumations in 17 of the 18 sites identified in Dharmasthala village. Human remains were recovered from one site and skeletal fragments from the surface of another. These have been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for analysis, with the report awaited.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
SC stays HC order restraining Tamil Nadu Waqf Board from exercising functions
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed a Madras High Court order which restrained the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board from exercising any functions while observing that its constitution was prima facie not in accordance with the provisions of law.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi issued notice to the Tamil Nadu government and others seeking their responses on the petition filed by the waqf board challenging the high court's January 8 order.
The high court had passed the order on a plea which challenged the constitution of the waqf board on the grounds, including that one out of the two persons as mandated in clause (d) of Section 14 of the Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Act, 1995, has not been nominated.
The plea before the high court also claimed non-compliance of the mandate that two of the total members of the Bar appointed under sub-section (1) of Section 14, excluding ex-officio members, shall be non-Muslim.
Section 14 of the Act deals with composition of board.
Before the high court, the counsel appearing for the state contended that constitution of the board is almost complete as majority of members have already been nominated or appointed and as far as other members are concerned, steps are being taken to complete the same.
In its order, the high court noted the mandate of second proviso that two of the total members of the board appointed under sub-section (1), excluding ex-offico member, shall be non-Muslim has also been not fulfilled.
"The constitution of the board as exists today, prima facie is not in accordance with the provisions of law," the high court said.
"In view of the above, the board cannot be allowed to exercise any powers and functions under the act. The board is hereby restrained from exercising any powers and functions," it said.
