26/11 judge order release of sealed documents
26/11 judge order release of sealed documents
A news daily had argued that keeping the documents under secrecy undermines the benefits of public scrutiny.

Chicago: The District court conducting the Mumbai attack trial in the US on Wednesday ordered that some of the over dozen sealed documents presented in the court as key evidences be made public.

Some of the documents are believed to have key evidence of links between Pakistan's powerful intelligence agency ISI and LeT and other terrorist outfits blamed for the November 2008 Mumbai carnage in which 166 persons were killed.

The order by US District Court Judge Harry Leinenweber came on a plea by The Chicago Tribune newspaper which sought public access to over a dozen sealed documents in the Tahawwur Rana case Details of which of the documents would be released was not immediately available.

The news daily had argued that keeping the documents under secrecy undermines the benefits of public scrutiny.

Invoking the First Amendment and common law rights, the paper asked the court to give it access to at least the redacted versions of the documents that have been presented under seals in the court and are believed to have key evidence of links between ISI and LeT and other terrorist outfits.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights and covers the freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

The documents have not been made available to anyone. In fact, some of these documents are not even available to Rana's attorneys. Rana is the co-accused in the Mumbai attack case and his trial is likely to throw light on ISI's links to

the incident.

Access to the Santiago Proffer and the sealed documents, the Chicago Tribune said, was crucial to its ability to report completely and accurately on the case, but it is equally as important that such access is "prompt".

The Santiago Proffer is a document in which the government presents its case and connects evidence by joining point to point the evidence, witnesses and conspirators.

The paper has argued that keeping the documents under wraps "undermines the benefits of public scrutiny".

What's your reaction?

Comments

https://sharpss.com/assets/images/user-avatar-s.jpg

0 comment

Write the first comment for this!