Over 250 terrorists killed in IAF air strikes, claims BJP chief Amit Shah

New Delhi, Jan 12: A fact-finding committee of the Congress on the JNU violence on Sunday said the January 5 attack inside the university campus was "state-sponsored" and recommended Vice Chancellor M Jagadesh Kumar be dismissed and criminal investigation initiated against him.

The Congress had appointed a four-member fact-finding committee to carry out a detailed inquiry into the violence at the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU).

Sushmita Dev, member of the committee, said the committee recommended that Kumar should be dismissed immediately and all the appointments in faculty should be probed and independent inquiry should take place.

"Criminal investigation must take place against the VC and faculty members and the security company," the Mahila Congress chief said.

"It is clear that the attack on JNU campus was state-sponsored," Dev said.

She also demanded a complete rollback of the JNU fee hike.

The other members of the fact-finding committee are Hibi Eden, MP and former NSUI president, Syed Naseer Hussain, MP and former president of JNU NSUI and Amrita Dhawan, a former NSUI president and ex-DUSU president.

On January 5 night, masked people armed with rods and sticks stormed the JNU campus and assaulted students and faculty members, and vandalised property, leaving several people injured.

Leftist outfits and the RSS-affiliated Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) blamed each other for the violence.

New Delhi, Jan 7: When a reign of terror was unleashed by "masked goons" in the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) on Sunday, Delhi Police registered two cases against varsity students union president Aishe Ghosh, who was badly injured in the attack, within a span of five minutes.

The registration of cases on two separate complaints against Ghosh and other students filed by JNU security department on January 3 and January 4 were registered on Sunday night when the violence was on, triggering questions about the motive behind the timing.

While the FIRs against Ghosh and others were registered between 8.44 pm and 8.49 pm after the JNUSU president was admitted to AIIMS, an FIR on the Sunday violence was registered on Monday at 5.36 am against unknown persons. The Sunday violence case has been transferred to Crime Branch for further investigations.

Questions are being raised over the registration of FIRs on Sunday while the complaints were filed on the previous days. Students allege that it was an afterthought from the police and authorities, as a nationwide outrage erupted as soon as the violence was reported.

Delhi Police is under attack for not coming to the aid of students targeted by the mob of ABVP activists armed with iron rods and sticks who went on a rampage on the campus. While no single person in the Sunday violence was arrested, the police are also accused of being a "mute spectator" by allowing the rioters to leave the campus without being arrested.

In its complaints, the JNU Security Department has alleged that Ghosh and others entered into a verbal and physical scuffle with security guards, including women, when officials tried to open the Centre for Information System (CIS) that was blocked by students protesting against the fee hike and registration process.

While the January 3 complaint claims that the students switched off the power supply to the CIS and evicted staff forcefully, the January 4 complaint alleged that they damaged the information system.

They also claimed the students damaged the servers, made it dysfunctional, severely damaged optic fibre cables and broke the biometric system in the CIS. The complaint also cited a Supreme Court order that prevented any protest within 100 metres of Administration Block and claimed the students violated the direction.

The FIR filed on Sunday violence on the basis of the statement of Inspector Anand Yadav said that the first phase of violence was reported at 3.45 pm when "40-50 unidentified" people who had "covered their faces" attacked students in Periyar Hostel and the situation was brought under control.

However at around 7 pm, "50-60 people with rods in their hands" targeted students in Sabarmati Hostel in which students were attacked and public property destroyed.

The FIR said that students were injured but skipped the mention of the attack on teachers, who were injured. At least two faculty members Sucharita Sen and Ameet Parameswaran were taken to AIIMS while several other teachers suffered minor injuries.

New Delhi, Jan 29: The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the plea by Mukesh Kumar Singh, one of the four death row convicts in the Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case, challenging the rejection of his mercy petition by the President.

A three-judge bench headed by Justice R Banumathi said that expeditious disposal of mercy plea by the President doesn't mean non-application of mind by him.

The court also said that alleged sufferings in prison can't be grounds to challenge the rejection of mercy petition.

The bench said all relevant material including judgments pronounced by trial court, high court and Supreme Court were placed before the President when he was considering the mercy plea of the convict.

The bench also comprising justices Ashok Bhushan and A S Bopanna rejected the contentions of the counsel appearing for Singh that entire materials of the case were not placed before the President when he was considering his mercy plea.

The bench, while referring to two files placed before it by the Centre on Tuesday, said that as per the January 15 covering letter which was sent by the Delhi government to the Ministry of Home Affairs, all relevant documents were sent.

The bench noted that detailed judgements of trial court, high court and the Supreme Court, curative petition filed by Singh, his past criminal history and his family background were sent to the Home Ministry by the Delhi government.

"All the documents were taken into consideration by the President while rejecting the mercy petition," the bench said.

The bench also dealt with submissions advanced by the convict's counsel, who had argued that the mercy plea was rejected at "lightning speed".

The bench said that if a mercy petition is expeditiously dealt with, it cannot be assumed that it has been adjudicated upon in a pre-conceived mind.