2013 Muzaffarnagar riots cases: Eight years on, over 1,100 acquitted, seven convicted
Muzaffarnagar (UP), Sep 7: Eight years since the Muzaffarnagar riots of 2013, 1,117 people accused in 97 cases related to murder, rape, robbery and arson among others connected to the violence have been acquitted over lack of evidence.
Seven people were convicted in a single case related to the murder of two youths, Sachin and Gaurav, in Kawal village in the district.
This, together with the stabbing to death of another person, Shahnawaz, on August 27, 2013 by six people had triggered the riots, according to police.
A special investigation team (SIT) was set up by the state government to look into the riots cases.
According to officials of the SIT, police had registered 510 cases against 1,480 people and filed chargesheets in 175 cases.
An official of the SIT said that over the years, 97 cases have been decided by a court which has acquitted 1,117 people accused in those due to lack of evidence.
The prosecution has not filed an appeal in any of these cases, he said.
The seven people convicted in the Kawal village double-murder case were sentenced to life imprisonment.
The SIT could not be file chargesheets in 20 cases under sections 153A and 295A of the IPC since it did not get permission for prosecution from the state government.
Meanwhile, the Uttar Pradesh government has decided to withdraw 77 cases related to the riots, but the court has given permission for withdrawal in just one case which is against 12 BJP leaders, including Uttar Pradesh minister Suresh Rana, BJP MLA Sangit Som, former BJP MP Bhartendu Singh and Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) leader Sadhvi Prachi.
SIT officials said 264 accused in the riots cases were facing trial at present.
Over 60 people were killed and more than 40,000 displaced during the Muzaffarnagar riots of 2013.
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 to hear plea challenging blocking of YouTube channel '4PM' on May 13
New Delhi, May 10 (PTI): The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a plea seeking quashing of an order blocking YouTube channel '4PM' on May 13.
The apex court on May 5 sought responses from the Centre and others on the plea filed by Sanjay Sharma, the editor of digital news platform '4PM', which has a subscriber base of 73 lakh.
The plea claimed that the blocking was effected by the intermediary pursuant to an undisclosed direction allegedly issued by the Centre citing "vague" grounds of "national security" and "public order".
As per the top court's cause list for May 13, the plea is slated to come up for hearing before a bench of justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih.
The plea claimed that the blocking was a "chilling assault on journalistic independence" and the right of public to receive information.
The petition, filed through advocate Talha Abdul Rahman, said no blocking order or underlying complaint was furnished to the petitioner, violating both statutory and constitutional safeguards.
The plea also contended that it was a settled law that the Constitution does not permit blanket removal of content without an opportunity to be heard.
"'National security' and 'public order' are not talismanic invocations to insulate executive action from scrutiny," it said.
The action was not only ultra vires the parent statute, but also strikes at the core of democratic accountability ensured by a free press, the plea said.
"The blocking is a chilling assault on journalistic independence and the right of the public to receive information," it said.
The plea sought a direction to the Centre to produce the order with "reasons" and "records", if any, issued to the intermediary for blocking the channel.
It also sought quashing of Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
Rule 16 mandates strict confidentiality regarding all requests, complaints and actions taken under the rule.
The plea also sought striking down and/or reading down Rule 9 of the Blocking Rules, 2009, to mandate issuance of a notice, opportunity of hearing and communication of a copy of the interim order to the originator or creator of the content prior to passing a final order.
It said the petitioner's YouTube channel was blocked without giving any fair opportunity to clarify or justify his case.
