Senior Cong leaders are egoistic, inaccessible: Cadre complain to Rahul Gandhi

New Delhi, Jun 19: RJD and AAP were not invited to the all-party meeting called by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday to discuss the situation at the India-China border after 20 Indian soldiers were killed in a "violent face-off," leaving the parties fuming.

Top RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav criticised the government for not inviting the party to the meeting, asking on Twitter late Thursday night, "Just wish to know the criteria for inviting political parties for tomorrow's (Friday's) all-party meet on Galwan Valley. I mean the grounds of inclusion/exclusion. Because our party hasn't received any message so far."

AAP's Rajya Sabha leader Sanjay Singh joined the chorus, "there is a strange ego-driven government at the centre. AAP has a government in Delhi and is the main opposition in Punjab. We have four MPs. But on a vital subject, AAP's views are not needed? The country is waiting for what the Prime Minister will say at the meeting."

Sources said the government has set a criteria to invite only parties with five or more MPs in Parliament for the digital meet, where the Prime Minister will brief the top leaders of parties and hear their views on the way ahead. There are at least 27 parties in the Parliament, which have less than five members, while 17 have more than five members or more than five MPs.

Interestingly, RJD has five MPs in Rajya Sabha and its senior MP Manoj K Jha shared the Rajya Sabha website link on Twitter, which showed the party has five MPs. "We have not been invited and the government's bogus argument has been exposed," Jha said.

CPI leaders said General Secretary D Raja received a call from Defence Minister Rajnath Singh inviting him to the meeting and with a message that the Prime Minister's Office would coordinate but there was no follow-up after that.

"Exclusion of AAP and RJD in the all-party meet on a National debate does not augment well. AAP is ruling Delhi and has its CM. Why should people of Delhi be kept out in such an important debate on National integrity and Sovereignty?" former NCP MP Majeed Memon tweeted.

During the all-party meeting on COVID-19 too, the government had not called all parties with representation in Parliament to the all-party meeting in April and had set five MPs as a benchmark to be invited.

Raja had then written a letter to Modi demanding that the government should not get into "technicalities" and discuss the issue with all parties in Parliament.

New Delhi, Jun 2: Manu Sharma, a convict in the 1999 Jessica Lal murder case, was released from Tihar Jail yesterday on the grounds of good behaviour after serving more than 16 years in prison, jail officials said on Tuesday.

Sharma had received the approval of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi for his release after a recommendation of the Sentence Review Board for the same.

Advocate Amit Sahni, while speaking to ANI, had said that Delhi Lieutenant Governor Anil Baijal had approved the name of Siddharth Vashishth also known as Manu Sharma for release from Tihar Jail.

He said that Sharma's name was approved in a sentence review board meeting held on May 11. Earlier, Delhi High Court had also asked the SRB to consider his name for release.

Sharma, the son of former Congress leader Venod Sharma, was convicted for shooting and murdering Jessica Lal, when she refused to serve him liquor at Tamarind Court restaurant at Qutub Colonnade in south Delhi's Mehrauli on April 29, 1999.

Vashishth, 45-years-old, was serving a life term in connection with a case registered under Section 302 (murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of the offense or giving false information to screen offender) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

According to officials, the convict has undergone imprisonment for 16 years, 11 months and 24 days in actual, and 23 years 4 months and 22 days with remission. He has availed parole 12 times and furlough 24 times.

Earlier, Manu's wife -- Preity Sharma -- had approached the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) claiming that her husband had been illegally detained for more than the prescribed period of incarceration (20 years with remission) as per the prevalent policy of the state.