Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[keep-it-cool]

"It is learnt the government and the CBI have taken a conscious decision not to prosecute them as a criminal case may not sustain in the court. "

HILLLLLARIOUS. This, an unsubstantiated article based on hypothetical scenarios by an unknown journo...this is your proof for Azhar? The burden of proof is not on me or the court of law but was on Azhar to get his life banned overturned as the inquiry commission had full rights to ban people from playing for India.

Ok. So it is unfounded because it does not tie in with your view. Fine.

So can YOU provide me with even one article (however unfounded it may be or whatever) to back up some of the claims that you have made here:

a) that the court agreed with the CBI report
b) the Supreme Court threw out Azhar's case (when actually it is still in the courts)

I am not holding my breath.

[keep-it-cool]

Just to put things in perspective: the BJP has the largest number of MPs with pending criminal cases against them in thise elections - inching out the Congress by 1.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/lok-sabha-election-2009/articleshow/4544571.cms

NEW DELHI: Prominent dons like Vijay Shukla, D P Yadav and Mukhtar Ansari, as well as wives of many convicted politicians, may have bitten the dust 
at the hustings this time but many tainted personalities have still managed to make it to the 15th Lok Sabha.

An analysis of the affidavits filed by contestants reveals that there has been a 22% increase in MPs with criminal cases compared with those elected in 2004. About 150 newly elected MPs have criminal cases pending against them. These include 73 who have serious charges under various counts of the IPC pending against them.

According to poll watch group National Election Watch, which conducted the analysis, BJP has the maximum 42 MPs with criminal cases pending against them.

The saffron party is closely followed by Congress with 41. SP comes third with eight such MPs while BSP has six. Topmost in the list of prominent personalities with criminal cases who lost the polls are: Atiq Ahmad of Apna Dal, UP; Vijay Shukla of JD(U), Bihar; Mitrasen of SP, UP and Akhilesh Singh, Independent, who fought from Nawada.

Dinesh Rathour, another Independent, tops losers chart prepared on basis of number of IPC cases against them.

And what has this got to do with Azharudding being a cheat?

Nothing. I am just pointing out that even if he is one he has lot of company across party lines.

[keep-it-cool]

KIC, here's something I'll type out in all-caps so you get it, as you don't seem to get it:

You give bogus links to repetitious articles that lack substance; I give links of official independent commission rulings. People can decide on which to follow without the need for your dramatic claims on having superior wikipedia knowledge.

THERE'S NO COURT CASE AGAINST AZHAR BECAUSE NO COURT CASES WERE FILED AGAINST MATCH-FIXERS, SO WHY WOULD THERE BE A CASE AGAINST AZHAR. Where have the courts found him innocent after the commission's inquiry?

YOUR ENTIRE ILLOGICAL ARGUMENT (AND I GET YOUR HOLLOW WIKIPEDIA CONGRESS PARTY "ARGUMENT") IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT COURTS HAVE NOT FOUND HIM GUILTY. AND HOW AND WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD THE COURTS FIND HIM GUILTY I DON'T UNDERSTAND IN ABSENCE OF ANY LEGAL PRECEDANCE IN BRINGING MATCH-FIXERS TO TRIAL.

So, please spare us on your party-line defense of Azhar. DD summarized the ploy well. That's all there is to it, maybe you can run in a seat adjacent to Azhar's.

Some simple points for you to ponder over once again:

A) If there is no legal case filed against Azhar, he is free to contest elections. That is the law. Dont vote for him if you dont want to.

B) Why should any court find him innocent when no charges were filed against him? The onus is on others to prove him guilty ...not on him to prove himself innocent.

C) A CBI or a commission report (however many times you point to those) does not prove guilt. It is only a charge ..again, not considered strong enough to pursue in court.

D) Azhar has filed a case against the BCCI ..that is still in the courts - unlike what you tried to pass off "the Supreme Court agreed with the commission report" and "the courts threw his case out" before being called out.

[dextrous]

KIC, here's something I'll type out in all-caps so you get it, as you don't seem to get it:

You give bogus links to repetitious articles that lack substance; I give links of official independent commission rulings. People can decide on which to follow without the need for your dramatic claims on having superior wikipedia knowledge.

THERE'S NO COURT CASE AGAINST AZHAR BECAUSE NO COURT CASES WERE FILED AGAINST MATCH-FIXERS, SO WHY WOULD THERE BE A CASE AGAINST AZHAR. Where have the courts found him innocent after the commission's inquiry?

YOUR ENTIRE ILLOGICAL ARGUMENT (AND I GET YOUR HOLLOW WIKIPEDIA CONGRESS PARTY "ARGUMENT") IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT COURTS HAVE NOT FOUND HIM GUILTY. AND HOW AND WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD THE COURTS FIND HIM GUILTY I DON'T UNDERSTAND IN ABSENCE OF ANY LEGAL PRECEDANCE IN BRINGING MATCH-FIXERS TO TRIAL.

So, please spare us on your party-line defense of Azhar. DD summarized the ploy well. That's all there is to it, maybe you can run in a seat adjacent to Azhar's.

Some simple points for you to ponder over once again:

A) If there is no legal case filed against Azhar, he is free to contest elections. That is the law. Dont vote for him if you dont want to.

B) Why should any court find him innocent when no charges were filed against him? The onus is on others to prove him guilty ...not on him to prove himself innocent.

C) A CBI or a commission report (however many times you point to those) does not prove guilt. It is only a charge ..again, not considered strong enough to pursue in court.

D) Azhar has filed a case against the BCCI ..that is still in the courts - unlike what you tried to pass off "the Supreme Court agreed with the commission report" and "the courts threw his case out" before being called out.

Simple points to ponder for you:

(a) Azhar's guilt was established by an independent commission  led by a supreme court justice which used a CBI report
(b) Azhar's guilt is established, beyond doubt, as is the precedance with establishing guilt for match-fixers
(c) Even if what you say is true and Azhar's case is still pending, his innocence is not established by that other than for hardcore congress partyliners for the simple reason that the BCCI appointed an independent commission, as per the rules of the presiding body, ICC, and in accordance with Azhar's contract with BCCI, to determine Azhar's guilt
(d) Your sole line of defense is based on technicality of what a criminal is; mine isn't, I can based my judgement on having read the CBI report letter to letter.

[keep-it-cool]

KIC, here's something I'll type out in all-caps so you get it, as you don't seem to get it:

You give bogus links to repetitious articles that lack substance; I give links of official independent commission rulings. People can decide on which to follow without the need for your dramatic claims on having superior wikipedia knowledge.

THERE'S NO COURT CASE AGAINST AZHAR BECAUSE NO COURT CASES WERE FILED AGAINST MATCH-FIXERS, SO WHY WOULD THERE BE A CASE AGAINST AZHAR. Where have the courts found him innocent after the commission's inquiry?

YOUR ENTIRE ILLOGICAL ARGUMENT (AND I GET YOUR HOLLOW WIKIPEDIA CONGRESS PARTY "ARGUMENT") IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT COURTS HAVE NOT FOUND HIM GUILTY. AND HOW AND WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD THE COURTS FIND HIM GUILTY I DON'T UNDERSTAND IN ABSENCE OF ANY LEGAL PRECEDANCE IN BRINGING MATCH-FIXERS TO TRIAL.

So, please spare us on your party-line defense of Azhar. DD summarized the ploy well. That's all there is to it, maybe you can run in a seat adjacent to Azhar's.

Some simple points for you to ponder over once again:

A) If there is no legal case filed against Azhar, he is free to contest elections. That is the law. Dont vote for him if you dont want to.

B) Why should any court find him innocent when no charges were filed against him? The onus is on others to prove him guilty ...not on him to prove himself innocent.

C) A CBI or a commission report (however many times you point to those) does not prove guilt. It is only a charge ..again, not considered strong enough to pursue in court.

D) Azhar has filed a case against the BCCI ..that is still in the courts - unlike what you tried to pass off "the Supreme Court agreed with the commission report" and "the courts threw his case out" before being called out.

Simple points to ponder for you:

(a) Azhar's guilt was established by an independent commission  led by a supreme court justice which used a CBI report

A commission finding is not establishment of guilt. That needs to be established in a court of law. Especially if one is to restrict him from contesting polls.

Anyway, as I said, the voter is entitled to form his / her own view irrespective of whether someone has been found guilty or not and vote according to that. In Moradabad they have.

(b) Azhar's guilt is established, beyond doubt, as is the precedance with establishing guilt for match-fixers

Not yet. Azhar has filed a case against the BCCI's stand on this. That is still subjudice.

(c) Even if what you say is true and Azhar's case is still pending, his innocence is not established by that other than for hardcore congress partyliners for the simple reason that the BCCI appointed an independent commission, as per the rules of the presiding body, ICC, and in accordance with Azhar's contract with BCCI, to determine Azhar's guilt

What the BCCI found does not matter as far as his ability to stand in elections is concerned. A company may find one of its employees guilty of fraud by whatever means. But unless he is proven guilty through the due process of law there is no reason for that company's finding to have a bearing on any other aspect of that employee's life.

(d) Your sole line of defense is based on technicality of what a criminal is; mine isn't, I can based my judgement on having read the CBI report letter to letter.

So, do you consider Quatrochchi guilty or not now that the CBI has given him a clean chit?

[WicketView]

Actually, if I recall a few years back, there was some talk about stopping people with criminal charges against them from contesting. This was an extremely stupid idea, because the easiest way of dealing with a formidable rival would be to press some criminal charge against him/her.

[keep-it-cool]

Actually, if I recall a few years back, there was some talk about stopping people with criminal charges against them from contesting. This was an extremely stupid idea, because the easiest way of dealing with a formidable rival would be to press some criminal charge against him/her.

I agree. Anyone who has been convicted by a court is not allowed to contest. That is why Sanjay Dutt was not allowed to contest.

Beyond that, it is for the voters to decide how to exercise their franchise. Each contestant has to file an affidavit detailing everything including any cases that he may be involved in. Also in this day and age it is difficult to imagine that the opposition will not jump on anything that is even remotely damaging.

[broadbat]

The real tragedy is the snails pace with which the law moves. The fact that there could be a delay of as much as 10 years between a FIR and a conviction emboldens a lot of these guys.

[WicketView]

The real tragedy is the snails pace with which the law moves. The fact that there could be a delay of as much as 10 years between a FIR and a conviction emboldens a lot of these guys.

exactly!

[keep-it-cool]

The real tragedy is the snails pace with which the law moves. The fact that there could be a delay of as much as 10 years between a FIR and a conviction emboldens a lot of these guys.

exactly!

I agree ..but there is a genuine problem here. It is not that cases do not drag on in other parts of the world but in India, I am told, we also face an acute shortage of people who are qualified judges. The only solution appears to be to identify certain key issues and set up special purpose fast track courts to tackle these while trying to reform the overall system.

[broadbat]

but there is a genuine problem here

We knew that there is a problem for years but it is not on the 'to do list' of any political party for obvious reasons.

[keep-it-cool]

but there is a genuine problem here

We knew that there is a problem for years but it is not on the 'to do list' of any political party for obvious reasons.

Yup. I agree.

But then it is also difficult to groom judges. The problem is that there are too many lawyers ...so, unless you have connections and get into a big firm, you are unlikely to make too much money. That is keeping a lot of talented guys away from the legal profession. Most law graduates prefer to do CS and get into the corporate world. And then among the lawyers, those who have gained experience in a variety of cases already make a lot of money in private practice and are not interested in the step up to the judiciary. Those who do are often not as qualified as you would want them to be. Just another one of the many systemic problems that has no quick fix solution. It will take time and initiative to get it right.

[Cernunnos]

but there is a genuine problem here

We knew that there is a problem for years but it is not on the 'to do list' of any political party for obvious reasons.

Yup. I agree.

But then it is also difficult to groom judges. The problem is that there are too many lawyers ...so, unless you have connections and get into a big firm, you are unlikely to make too much money. That is keeping a lot of talented guys away from the legal profession. Most law graduates prefer to do CS and get into the corporate world. And then among the lawyers, those who have gained experience in a variety of cases already make a lot of money in private practice and are not interested in the step up to the judiciary. Those who do are often not as qualified as you would want them to be. Just another one of the many systemic problems that has no quick fix solution. It will take time and initiative to get it right.

It will take time. It will take time. That's what I've heard all my life. Even after 60 years of holding on to the reins of power, the upholders of the dynasty seek time.

Of course Azhar is entitled to stand and win in elections, by the rule book. It is equally true that no self-respecting nation would ensure that such a traitorous match-fixer got a ticket. 10 years ago, such a high-profile cheat like Azhar would not be touched by any party, let alone the biggest national party, but today even that lakshmanrekha has been crossed. This is how subverted India has become. Morality and ethics have become dirty words, and "gaming the system" has become the key.

[vincent]

Are we not being a little too tough on Azhar? After all, charges against him are not about selling military secrets to Pakistan and hence calling him an aleged "national traitor" is a little too much. How about Sidhu, who was more than just charged for a murder? Is murder less of a crime so that no one is worried that he is elected as an MP?

[dextrous]

How about Sidhu, who was more than just charged for a murder? Is murder less of a crime so that no one is worried that he is elected as an MP?

murder? he was charged for culpable homocide by the punjab hc, which was stayed by the SC

[WicketView]

How about Sidhu, who was more than just charged for a murder? Is murder less of a crime so that no one is worried that he is elected as an MP?

murder? he was charged for culpable homocide by the punjab hc, which was stayed by the SC

And yet, this is a guy who was undeniably involved in the killing.

[dextrous]

How about Sidhu, who was more than just charged for a murder? Is murder less of a crime so that no one is worried that he is elected as an MP?

murder? he was charged for culpable homocide by the punjab hc, which was stayed by the SC

And yet, this is a guy who was undeniably involved in the killing.

It was an unfortunate road rage accident that any one of us could have been involved in. Clearly, supreme court, kic's gold standard, didn't feel it was even manslaughter.

But, again, nothing to do with Azhar and match-fixing.

[keep-it-cool]

How about Sidhu, who was more than just charged for a murder? Is murder less of a crime so that no one is worried that he is elected as an MP?

murder? he was charged for culpable homocide by the punjab hc, which was stayed by the SC

And yet, this is a guy who was undeniably involved in the killing.

It was an unfortunate road rage accident that any one of us could have been involved in. Clearly, supreme court, kic's gold standard, didn't feel it was even manslaughter.

But, again, nothing to do with Azhar and match-fixing.

What nonsense ...I wonder how you make all these things up. The Supreme Court stayed the ruling so that Sidhu has time to appeal - not because it "didnt feel it was even manslaughter".

That is the normal practice with any case - be it the Sanjay Dutt case under the Arms Act or anything else related to the gravest of crimes. He has now appealed and the case will take its own course. He was found guilty by the Punjab High Court.

Later the Supreme Court stayed the conviction so that Sidhu could contest the by-polls while the appeals process took its own time. It, in no way, reflects the SC's ruling on the HC's verdict.

[keep-it-cool]

Are we not being a little too tough on Azhar? After all, charges against him are not about selling military secrets to Pakistan and hence calling him an aleged "national traitor" is a little too much. How about Sidhu, who was more than just charged for a murder? Is murder less of a crime so that no one is worried that he is elected as an MP?

Exactly my point. Way over the top and selective - given that people indulging in gang wars (with linkages to Dubai) and drug trafficking have also contested - that too spread across all parties.

[WicketView]

How about Sidhu, who was more than just charged for a murder? Is murder less of a crime so that no one is worried that he is elected as an MP?

murder? he was charged for culpable homocide by the punjab hc, which was stayed by the SC

And yet, this is a guy who was undeniably involved in the killing.

It was an unfortunate road rage accident that any one of us could have been involved in. Clearly, supreme court, kic's gold standard, didn't feel it was even manslaughter.

Huh ? I think most of us don't beat up someone if we have an altercation.

But, again, nothing to do with Azhar and match-fixing.

[keep-it-cool]

How about Sidhu, who was more than just charged for a murder? Is murder less of a crime so that no one is worried that he is elected as an MP?

murder? he was charged for culpable homocide by the punjab hc, which was stayed by the SC

And yet, this is a guy who was undeniably involved in the killing.

It was an unfortunate road rage accident that any one of us could have been involved in. Clearly, supreme court, kic's gold standard, didn't feel it was even manslaughter.

Huh ? I think most of us don't beat up someone if we have an altercation.

Definitely not if it is a 65 year old man ...not by pulling him forcibly out of his car because he gave a few gaalis (not my words ...these are our own parliamentarian's words on Rajat Sharma's Aap Ki Adalat - he even managed to sound proud about it "jab koi aapke shaan ko gaali de to phir kya kare")