NEW YORK,An American court has
dismissed a human rights violation lawsuit against Congress party filed by a
Sikh group in the anti-Sikh riots case, saying the group has no legal standing
to file such a suit and events that do not "touch and concern" the US
will not be heard in a US court.
Judge
Robert Sweet granted a motion by the Congress party to dismiss the 1984-lawsuit
filed by Sikhs for Justice (SFJ), ruling that the rights group cannot be a
plaintiff and individual plaintiffs are not "legal
representatives". "No further amendment is permitted and case is
dismissed," Sweet said in his order on Monday, ruling that SFJ failed to
show sufficient "touch and concern" to the US. SFJ said it would
challenge the order in an appeals court on the grounds that the case sufficiently
"touches and concerns" the US and SFJ has "institutional
standing" to seek "declaratory judgment" for the 1984 violence
against Sikhs. It has time till May 23 to file its appeal.
Congress
party's attorney Ravi Batra said the judge has ruled that SFJ and other named
plaintiffs in the case lack legal standing to file such a case. The court
dismissed the case also for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and barred SFJ
from filing any additional amendment of the complaint, as it would be futile. Batra
said the rule of law has reigned supreme with the dismissal of the case. The US
Supreme Court established the precedent that events occurring entirely on
foreign soil by and between foreigners, without touching or concerning the US,
would not be heard in US courts, Batra told PTI. The judge has "put
SFJ out of business of filing meritless lawsuits that only seek publicity and
have no chance of getting merit-based justice, he said, adding SFJ's polygamous
lawsuits cannot win in court given its faulty recipe.
Batra
said in legal terms, SFJ is an American corporation and not an alien and US
federal law Alien Torts Statute only permits aliens to sue. Other individual
plaintiffs are also not permitted to file a lawsuit as they are not recognised
by New York law or by Indian Law to be "legal representatives."
"Federal Judge Robert W. Sweet's Order and Judgment dismissing SFJ's case
against INC must be music to every law abiding citizen in the world who value's
their own nation's sovereignty," he said, adding Sweet acknowledged in a
footnote in his ruling, "contrary to SFJ's false assertions, that India
has acted to address the hurt caused by the 1984 events."
SFJ
legal advisor Gurpatwant Singh Pannun said that SFJ would provide documentary
evidence and testimony before the appeals court that the Congress party
allegedly "commands, controls and directs" the functioning of New
York based entity INOC (Indian National Overseas Congress), satisfying the
requirement of "touch and concern". The group would also
challenge the ruling that it lacks legal standing on the grounds that federal
law grants "institutional standing" to human rights groups to seek
"declaratory judgments" by the US Courts.
एक टिप्पणी भेजें