Varun national threat, Mayawati govt tells SC

Original Report

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Varun-national-threat-Mayawati-govt-tells-SC/articleshow/4390404.cms?TOI_latestnews

NEW DELHI: Mayawati government has strongly opposed Varun Gandhi's challenge to his detention under the National Security Act. The UP govt has accused Varun Gandhi of causing fear among Muslims.

In an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court through the district magistrate of Pilibhit, the UP government has justified the detention of BJP candidate by calling him a threat to public order and accusing him of causing fear among Muslims. The next hearing is on Monday.

The strong defence of Varun's detention is significant in view of the sharp reactions the case has drawn. Both Samajwadi Party and Congress suspect that the use of a tough law against Varun just after his purportedly provocative speech against Muslims was meant to polarise the electorate. In fact, SP has even talked of a clandestine pact between BJP and BSP.

Mayawati's vigorous defence of its move against Varun Gandhi in the SC can only strengthen the suspicion about a clandestine pact between the BJP and the BSP to polarise the electorate. There are indications of rising appreciation among Muslim community for her tough stand against the BJP candidate, as well as signs of sympathy for the saffron party in Pilibhit and other constituencies of eastern UP.

In his affidavit, Ajay Chauhan, district magistrate of Pilibhit, has defended his preventive detention order against Varun, saying that latter's acitivities were prejudicial to public order.

He builds up his case against Varun by saying that he held his rally under the banner of "Hindu Samman Sammelan", and not as "Karyakarta Sammelan" as claimed in the petition challenging his detention.

The affidavit dismisses Varun's defence that the CD of his purported contents was doctored as irrelevant to present proceedings which it says is centred on the competence of the district magistrate to detain him under NSA.

It also says that the petitioner should have presented his case before the Advisory Board, which scrutinises the legality of preventive detentions under NSA, rather than the SC.

Credibility:     

1