From The Heart

External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna has been trying to impart a humane touch among people in his ministry while deal- ing with issues relating to the old, the ail- ing and the dead. The minister always makes it a point to meet all his associates, friends or relatives who are hospitalised or bed-ridden. Last week, Krishna found time to fly to Mumbai to meet cartoonist R.K. Laxman who's hospitalised. Recently, he conveyed to the missions in Gulf coun- tries that special efforts should be made to ensure that all dead bodies of Indian nationals be flown back so their last rites can be conducted at home.

Bhopal retrial: No ‘double jeopardy’ as SC’s 1996 order will be set aside

New Delhi: Contrary to the claim made by former Union Carbide counsel Fali Nariman, the government’s move to hold a retrial in the Bhopal gas case, on the higher charge of manslaughter punishable with a 10-year term, will not violate the right to double jeopardy protection.

For, Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) — ironically, the very provision cited by Nariman in his media interviews — bars anybody from being tried again on the same facts “while such conviction or acquittal remains in force”. The ultimate objective of the curative petition due to be filed by the government before the Supreme Court is to set aside the June 7 trial court verdict, sentencing the Bhopal accused to two years on the mild charge of death caused by a rash or negligent act.
The conviction by the trial court will automatically cease to be in force once the Supreme Court allows the curative petition challenging the 1996 decision of the bench headed by the then Chief Justice of India A M Ahmadi. For, the trial court verdict was determined by the 14-year-old apex court verdict, which had rather controversially reduced the liability of Bhopal gas accused from the charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder (manslaughter) under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to that of death caused by a rash or negligent act under Section 304A IPC.
Since the 1996 verdict left little scope for the trial court to convict the Bhopal accused for manslaughter, the group of ministers headed by P Chidambaram rightly concluded that a regular appeal against the June 7 judgment before the Madhya Pradesh high court would not suffice. The Cabinet agreed with the GOM’s recommendation that the penalty for the world’s largest industrial disaster cannot go beyond the two years imposed by the June 7 verdict without first removing the shackles placed by the 1996 Supreme Court judgment.
If the curative petition works, it will override the 1996 Supreme Court verdict and that in turn will result in, as a natural corollary, the setting aside of the June 7 convictions under the lesser offence of rash or negligent death. So, when a fresh trial is held in such an eventuality on the more serious charge of manslaughter, it will in no way violate the double jeopardy rule recognized around the world.
Nariman’s attack on the government’s attempt to reprosecute Keshub Mahindra and other Bhopal accused has raised eyebrows not only because of its misleading logic about double jeopardy but also because of its sheer impropriety. For, Nariman himself had contributed to the 1996 judgment, in his capacity as counsel for Union Carbide India Limited’s managing director V P Gokhale.
The 1996 verdict quotes Nariman and other counsel arguing that there was no question of the accused having done any act “with the knowledge that they were likely by such act to cause death”. This was the basis on which the Ahmadi bench had then rejected the CBI’s allegation that the Bhopal gas accused knew about the faulty design of the plant and the deficiencies in its operation.

Proof Against Suspects Enough To Warrant Fullscale Probe, PC Informed Malik

New Delhi: India expects Pakistan to move against as many as six individuals connected with the 26/11 Mumbai attacks who have not been touched by the investigators so far. India sees action against these persons as central to bringing the Mumbai guilty to book.
Senior sources said that the Indian position on the six was conveyed to Pakistan during the recent meeting of home minister P Chidambaram with his Pakistani counterpart Rehman Malik. It was pointed out that the evidence against the suspects was sufficient to warrant a fullscale investigation.


The Indian side pointed to Sajjid Mir, a handler of 26/11 accused David Headley, Maj Abdur Rehman or Pasha, Brig Riaz, Abu Kafa, Abu al-Qama and Abu Hamza. Abu al-Qama is understood to have helped train the Mumbai squad and two persons with military titles could be either serving or retired Army personnel.
Pakistan’s ISI has often used Army officers made to “retire” as conduits with terror groups. Based on details provided by Headley in his long interactions with an Indian team, Pakistan was provided with locations where these individuals operated, their physical description and in some cases, photographs as well. The Pakistani plea that a court has said that voice samples may be extracted only with the permission of the suspects was countered with the suggestion that a higher court be approached in the matter.

The Indian delegation pointed out that the Pakistani authorities could themselves carry out the voice tests and match them with transcripts obtained during the Mumbai attacks during which some of the six were in direct contact with the Lashkar team. It was stressed that action against these known terror suspects was an important test of Pakistan’s willingness to act against terrorism directed at India.
The atmospherics at the interaction were encouraging but India would like Pakistan to act on the exhaustive leads after Headley revealed a trove of information to the Indian team. It was hoped that positive steps will be visible ahead of the July 15 meeting of the Indian and Pakistani foreign ministers. Headley, a US citizen of part Pakistani origin, had travelled to Pakistan and saw “Operation Karachi”, a plan to use Indian fugitives in terror attacks on Indian targets, being operationalised