Do you want to take lie-detection test, court asks Tytler
NEWDELHI: Congress leader Jagdish Tytler on Tuesday was directed by a Delhi court to give an “unambiguous” reply on whether he wanted to undergo lie-detector test in a 1984 antiSikh riots case in which he was earlier given clean chit.
The court held that CBI’s plea for obtaining consent of Tytler and businessman Abhishek Verma, a prosecution witness in the case, for conducting polygraph test was maintainable.
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Shivali Sharma also directed V er ma to communicate his unambiguous consent or no consent for being subjected to polygraph test.
“Both then on-applicants( Ty tl er and V er ma) are directed to file an affidavit clearly specifying they have understood the nature of the test that is sought to be conducted on them and giving a clean and unambiguous consent/no consent for participating in the polygraph test” the court said.
It said if there are any conditions attached to the consent, Ty tler and Verma should appear in person on May 22, the next date of hearing, for clarification.
The court said that inhis reply to CBI’s plea seeking his consent for the test, Tytler had preferred to challenge the maintainability of the application and remained evasive with regard to his consent. “Jagdish Tytler is thus directed to communicate to this court his unambiguous consent/ no consent for being subjected to polygraph test,” it said.
Challenging the maintain ability of CBI’s plea, Tytler’s counsel had argued that it was a gross misuse of process of law which was filed with an intent to embarrass him.
Referring to a December 4,2015 order of the court, he had said that CBI was directed to conduct lie detection test on Verma, if required and there was direction for conducting the test on the
The court, however, rejected his contention, saying it was the prerogative of the investigating officer (IO) as to on whom he wants to conduct polygraph test and the court’s direction for investigation does not tie hands of the I O to conduct further probe on any other additional aspect.
“Merely because the court in December 4, 2015 order had not directed for conducting polygraph test on Tytler, it does not imply thatCBI’shands aretiesin this regard,” it said.
The court also agreed with advocates Kamna Vohra and Prabhsahay Kaur, who represented the complainant victim, and refused to take on record a compilation placed by Tytler’s counsel on the history of the case, saying it was irrelevant at this stage.
The case pertains to the riot sat Gurud war aPul bang ash in North Delhi where three people were killed on November1, 1984, a day after the assassination of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Ty tl er, who has denied any role in the riots, was given clean chit by the CBI thrice in the case, but the agency was directed by the court to further investigate the matter. The victims had filed a protest petition challenging the CBI’s closure reports in the case.
The court had in December 2015 directed the CBI to further investigate the matter and said it would monitor the probe every two months to ensure that no