|
|
Exhibiting of Documents - Jabir's Case:- 
|
STATEMENT ON THE OCCASION OF THE 25TH YEAR OF GANG-ROBBERY, KIDNAPPING AND
BRUTAL TORTURE BY ABU DHABI POLICE!
"4 UAE Judgments and 2 Indian Judgments in favour of an Indian origin, UAE Investor, apart from embezzlement of his property and assets worth above $100m US dollars by the UAE administration. 25 years have elapsed and still unsettled". ...
" Chase The Trails Of 25-Year ‘UAE Fugitive" 
THE DETAILS OF EXHIBITS OF MR. JABIR, THE 'JUDGMENT CREDITOR'
100s of communications between the Petitioner and the most irresponsible, deceitful Indian politicians
and diplomats, now available to the public". View Exhibits:
(Highlights - Exhibiting of Documents - Jabir's Case:-)
‘INDO-GULF REPARATION MECHANISMS’ TIMELINE HIGHLIGHTING SUBMISSIONS & RESPONSES:
- ‘INDO-GULF REPARATION MECHANISMS’
TIMELINE HIGHLIGHTING SUBMISSIONS & RESPONSES
Endeavours made by Shri. Panikkaveetil K. Jabir towards formulation and implementation of a Mutual Human Rights Law and Reparation Mechanisms Between the Government of India and the Gulf (Gulf Cooperation Council - GCC) countries, mandating our elected representatives and officials to eliminate discrimination and imbalances of Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) working in different countries. This also involves the recognition and protection of the dignity of individuals.
Sl.No. |
Date |
Description of documents |
Page Nos. |
1. |
30-1-2013 |
Representation to (1) The Secretary to Government, Ministry of External Affairs, Govt. of India, South Block, New Delhi-110011 (2) Hon’ble Minister Shri. Salman Khurshid, Minisitry of External Affairs, South Block, New Delhi (3) The Secretary to Government, Ministry of Overseas Indians Affairs, Government of India, Akbar Bhavan, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi (4) Hon’ble Minister Shri. Vayalar Ravi, Ministry of Overseas Indians Affairs, Government of India, Akbar Bhavan, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi. and (5) The Hon’ble Ambassador of the U.A.E., Embassy of the United Arab Emirates, 12, Chandragupta Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi-110 021 (INDIA) along with other attachments and comments. []
|
1-44 |
2. |
15-2-2013 |
Reply from Hon’ble Minister Salman Khurshid
Reply from Hon’ble Minister Salman Khurshid, Minister of External Affairs, acknowledging receipt of representation; Minister has asked to the concerned department to examine the same. []
|
45 |
3. |
20-3-2013 |
Important Reminder Notice [Reminder No.1]
Important Reminder Notice to the Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi.
[]
| 46-63 |
4. |
04-04-2013 |
- Correspondence with External Affairs Ministry under the Right to Information Act. (Part. 1)
Application for Information under RTI Act to the Central Public Information Officer, Ministry of External Affairs (MEA)
Government of India, South Block, New Delhi – 110 011.
By the applicant: Panikkaveettil K. Jabir. [Date: 04-04-2013]
- Questions.
- Point (4) Has Government of India (the sending State) received representation from Indian Citizens about treatment meted out to them in the UAE, in violation of Human Rights and against norms of functioning of civilized States as referred to at Page 314(e) of Current Legal Problems 1952? His sending State (India) to curb, contain and protect his country’s interest? []
- Reply.
(In answer to the above question, a reply was received from Shri Ashish Midha, Under Secretary (Gulf), Ministry External Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi, vide letter No.G/551/6/2013 dated May 10, 2013. “Paragraph 2. In so far as point (4) is concerned, in the recent past only one representation of Shri P.K. Jabir was received by this Ministry, which was examined and responded to by the Ministry) []
|
64-66 |
5. |
02-05-2013 |
Reply from the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India
Subsequently, a reply received from the Ministry of External Affairs 02-05-2013: []
Letter received from Shri A.R.Ghanashyam, Joint Secretary, MEA(Gulf & Hajj), intimating various arrangements/views the Government of India has established for the welfare of Indian community and assistance to the distressed Indians abroad. (The true content of letter followed here below)
· Migrant Cell: Government of India has established the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs which deals with the welfare of Indian Community and issues concerning Overseas Citizenship of India, Persons of Indian Origin and Indians abroad.
· MOU with GCC: Several institutional arrangements are in place (including Agreemtnts) with Gulf Countries for assistance to Indian Citizens in the Gulf.
· Visits: Ministerial Level visits are periodically undertaken by Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, Ministry of External Affairs and also Ministers from some State Governments to Gulf Countries.
· Educational Arrangements: The Officials dealing with matters pertaining to the welfare of Indian Community abroad are competent and dedicated to their work, with a good understanding of relevant issues.
· Participation in other Charters: It is not our policy to interfere in the functioning of Charters of other countries concerning the welfare of their citizens.
· Reparation Fund: All Indian Missions in the Gulf have effective and functional institutional mechanisms for extending consular/monetary assistance to distressed Indians including the cost of legal assistance & reparation. []
|
67-68 |
6. |
10-06 2013 |
The second (Important) reminder notice to the MEA.
|
69-77 |
7. |
09-07-2013 |
- Reply received from the Ministry of External Affairs:
('Our national shame' that our Ministry of External Affairs are having only some 'views' for the welfare of Indian Community abroad and nothing else!)
In reply to the above notice, Shri Ashish Middha, the Under Secretary, MEA, has revealed that, the letter dated 02-05-2013, from Mr. Ghanashyam, Joint Secretary, MEA (Gulf & Hajj), conveys 'ONLY' the Ministry’s views on various points/captions (Migrant Cell, MOU with GCC, Visits, Educational Arrangements, Participation in other Charters, Reparation Fund) and nothing otherwise. The captions may hence, not be treated as confirmations. [Letter No.58/US(Gulf) dated 9-7-2013[]
|
78 |
8 |
|
Related correspondences with External Affairs Ministry, Ministry of Overseas Indians Affairs and others under the Right to Information Act. (Part. 2)
|
|
9
|
01-07-2013
|
To the PIO, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India
Application under the RTI Act 2005 (Rule) 3, dated 1st July 2013 to The Public Information Officer (PIO), Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi-110 011 for information about the details of the Migrant Cell, MOU with GCC, Reparation Fund etc.[]
|
79-80 |
10.
|
09-07-2013 |
Reply received from the Ministry of External Affairs under RTI Act:
- Letter No.G-551/6/2013 dated July 9, 2013 from Shri Ashish Middha, the Under Secretary (Gulf), South Block, MEA, New Delhi, that, he has been transferring the letter to other ministries (a) the Public Information Officer, Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, (b) Ministry of Labour & Employment and (c) CPV Division, MEA, directing them to process the application and reply directly to the applicant.[]
|
81 |
11. |
10-07-2013 |
Reply received from the Ministry of External Affairs under RTI Act:
Again, letter No.G-551/6/2013 dated July10, 2013 from Shri Ashish Middha, the Under Secretary (Gulf), South Block, MEA, New Delhi, conveys a detailed report, but the same message he had given earlier, that these are Ministry’s views on various points/captions (Migrant Cell, MOU with GCC, Visits, Educational Arrangements, Participation in other Charters, Reparation Fund) and nothing otherwise.[]
|
82-83 |
12. |
19-07-2013 |
Reply received from the Ministry of Labour & Employment:
Letter No.Z-18015/48/2013-CL dated 19th July, 2013 from Irene Cherian, CPIO/Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi, to the petitioner, intimating that “I am directed to refer to your application under Right to Information Act, 2005 dated 02-05-2013 received in the Section on 20-7-2013 and to say that the information sought (about the details of the MOU with GCC; etc.) pertaining to this division may be treated as NIL.[]
|
84
|
13 |
|
No reply has been received from the Ministry of Overseas Indians Affairs, Govt. of India:
(It has to be noted that, no reply has so far been received from the Public Information Officer of the Overseas Indians Affairs, under RTI Act, (There was also no reply for the earlier representation or for the reminders!) on the subject in regards with the Migrant Cell, MOU with GCC, Reparation fund for the welfare of Overseas Indians.
Indo - Gulf Reparation Mechanisms’ - List of Recipients[]
|
85
|
| 14. |
|
Indo - Gulf Reparation Mechanisms - Remarks & EndNote
Remarks:
Shri Vayalar Ravi, the Hon’ble Minister of Overseas Indians Affairs, Govt. of India, is one of the five recipients of the Representation.
- The ‘Ministry of Non-Resident Indians’ Affairs’, the earlier version of the ‘Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs’ (MOIA), was created vide notification No. Doc.CD-160/2004 dated 27 May 2004 issued by the President of India, covering a wide range of areas concerning the welfare of overseas Indians, virtually making the Ministry a single window service provider. The Ministry is headed by Cabinet Minister, Shri Vayalar Ravi.
- Despite the above solemn intention of the Government of India, it is sad to state that even an acknowledgment by way of interim reply, as sought in the representation and the reminders, has not been received from the Hon’ble Minister Shri. Vayalar Ravi nor his Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs].
[‘It is clear from the above that the apprehension of the petitioner expressed in his second reminder dated 10th June, 2013 addressed to the Secretary of External Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi is correct.’].
End Note:
“The establishments of institutional arrangements for the welfare of ‘Overseas Indian Community’, as highlighted by the Government of India, are intentionally deceptive, untruthful and purport to demonstrate that there are procedural remedies or tactics.
Serious failures and inadequacies to comply with statutory or regulatory obligations on the part of both the Ministries, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) & the ‘Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs’ (MOIA) now stand proved by the subsequent communications received by the petitioner from the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India”.
 |
|
15
|
|
Self-contained Explanatory Representation to the Ministry of External Affairs, Delhi, 2013
-
Representation was submitted on 28 October, 2013
|
|
16. |
|
Reminder to the MEA, in relation with the above Representation - 'Reminder Notice' dated 16 July, 2014
|
|
17. |
|
RTI Application to the Office of the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India - February 24, 2015
-
For the last two decades the applicant is painstakingly working for the recognition of his individual dignity and justice as well as representing for recognition of the inherent dignity and rights of the ‘Indian Diaspora’ as a whole ... [ ]
|
128
|
00
18. |
|
A reply from Prime Minister's Office: Dated 25th March, 2015
-
A reply from Prime Minister's Office containing "action not warranted": Dated 25th March, 2015 under Right to Information Act. ... "RTI Application - Full text"
|
130
|
19. |
|
New Representation to the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India - 09th Feb, 2018
-
The Gravest Injustice Towards An Indian Investor In UAE making out a case of 'Outright Fraud' against the UAE administration. It's perhaps unparalleled in the whole history of the world!. ... " Full text"
|
162
|
20. |
|
Damages For Non-Enforcement of Judgments of the Courts of UAE - Letter to UAE Ambassador to India
-
'Damages For Non-Enforcement of Judgments of the Courts of United Arab Emirates (UAE)' - Letter to H.E. Dr. Ahmed Al Banna, UAE Ambassador to India, Dated 28th Feb, 2018. ... " Full text"
|
216
|
21. |
|
The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) Has Responded To The Representation Submitted By Our Client
-
''Mission (Abu Dhabi, UAE) is requested to look into the matter and ascertain the facts' - Letter from the Ministry of External Affairs, dated 05th Mar, 2018. ... " Full text"
|
218
|
22. |
|
Mission in Abu Dhabi, UAE & MEA, asks the details of accused (UAE) and the copies of Judgments
-
'Letter dated 02-04-18 from the office of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), Union of India, pertaining to the submission of details of accused(UAE) and the copies of Judgments for the Mission in Abu Dhabi, UAE. ... " Full text"
|
219
|
23. |
|
The submission of details of accused (UAE) and the copies of Judgments of Jabir's case
-
''The details of accused and the copies of Judgments which have been submitted on 12-04-2018 at the Mission in Abu Dhabi, UAE as per the instruction of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), Union of India. ... " Full text"
|
253
|
24. |
|
Mission in Abu Dhabi, UAE, asks what action to be taken by the Embassy to resolve the case
-
''Letter dated 29-04-18 from First Secretary, the Mission in Abu Dhabi, UAE, asking to the Petitioner for what action to be taken by Embassy to resolve the case. ... " Full text"
|
254
|
25. |
|
Instructions for enforcement action against criminal contempt to a set of UAE & India Court Judgments
-
''The question about what action to be taken to resolve the UAE case was also answered to the Embassy of Abu Dhabi, UAE, on 12-05-18 on the basis of criminal contempt and total disregard for the laws, rules and orders, covering all the relevant facts. ... " Full text"
|
286
|
|
|
|
Annotations: Exhibit a1; b1 [ARCHIVE - DOCUMENTS RELATING TO 'JABIR's CASE']
[Here in this case, a bona fide Indian origin UAE Investor, the ‘Decree Holder’ of a Civil Lawsuit, who reported crimes such as trespassing and burglary at his office, was kidnapped, tortured, threatened him to be killed and subsequently detained for a long period often in solitary confinement by a group of royal thugs. He was trapped in a fabricated case, but he boldly fought in all the 3 Courts in Abu Dhabi, UAE, against the Abu Dhabi Police, fearless of the negative situations prevailing in that country.]
ARBITRARY DETENTION.
The arrest and detention were against the basic principles of law. The arrogant policemen of Abu Dhabi, however, committed the atrocities in full view of the public. This proved to be their undoing.
THE REACTION OF THE COURT.
The Court expressed its shock while noticing that a victim who sought for police help from trespassers was arrested and detained by the police!
THE JUDGMENT AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT.
The Judgment of the ‘Legal Court of First Instance’ was pronounced on 10-04-1996.
The Judgment Creditor and his brother who were charged with offences by the Abu Dhabi Police, were acquitted. The Court directed the Authorities, to prosecute the policeman involved in the illegal activities. It was found that Hassan Saeed was guilty of deception and assault. The Court criticized the Public Prosecution for concealing the assault of the policeman on the Judgment Creditor, and its tampering of evidence. Some of the material findings of the Court are:-
i) The policeman and Hassan Saeed had committed the offences of trespass and assault.
ii) The Judgment Creditor had only exercised his legal right, and he and his brother were attacked by the policeman and Hassan Saeed by taking the law into their hand.
iii) The police, which was expected to help the victims, unjustifiably protected the trespassers who were the law breakers.
iv) The Criminal Court observed that, the Interim Judgment of the Abu Dhabi Civil Court, ruled that the Judgment Creditor was the really aggrieved person and had deserved help.
v) The conduct of the police clearly proved the malicious motives in initiating the criminal complaint against the Judgment Creditor.
vi) Ultimately, the Court found that the policeman indulged in the illegal criminal act due to his greed, and that the police framed false charges against the Judgment Creditor to save their face.
DIRECTIONS OF COURT – AN ENQUIRY INTO THE CONDUCT OF POLICE.
The Court took a serious view of the entire events. It ordered an enquiry into the conduct of the police. The records were forwarded to the Public Prosecution for facilitating the investigation. [Source: Judgment For Sale]
|
1 |
Exhibit a1; b1 |
Judgment (Legal Court of First Instance) of Ministry of Justice, Abu Dhabi, UAE  |
:
Annotations: Exhibit a2; b2
CONTINUATION OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE APEX COURT.
Ultimately, the prosecution filed an appeal in the Supreme Court of Abu Dhabi. The case was posted for hearing on 18-04-1996.
APEX COURT ORDER GRANTING BAIL TO THE ‘JUDGMENT CREDITOR’.
The Court granted bail to the Judgment Creditor on the day the prosecution filing an appeal. However, despite the bail and sureties the Judgment Creditor was not released from the prison.
INTERVENING EVENTS CONFIRMING VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND ADMISSION OF POLICE ABOUT SUCH VIOLATIONS.
In the meantime, policeman Ahmed Abdulla Abdul Kadir filed a declaration dated 17-03-1996, attested by a Notary, where-under he dropped the contentions in his complaint. Hassan Saeed followed the suit and admitted his guilt. The two other policemen submitted that they were misguided by Ahmed Abdulla Abdul Kadir in committing arrest and torture against the Judgment Creditor with a view to extort money.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court advised the Judgment Creditor to sue against the perpetrators of the crime for damages and malicious actions.
JUDGMENT OF UAE SUPREME COURT WHICH AFFIRMED THE LANDMARK RULING OF LOWER COURT.
The final Judgment of the Supreme Court was rendered on 19-05-1996. The Hon’ble Supreme Court declared that the Judgment Creditor was totally innocent of the charges. The case hoisted against the Judgment Creditor was wholly false, baseless and fabricated by the police for personal gains. The Court observed further that all the pieces of evidence proved propriety in the acts and conduct of the Judgment Creditor.
The conduct of the Prosecutor was strongly condemned. Referring to the principles of Islamic Law, the Supreme Court of Abu Dhabi observed that the law had honoured the man who protected his freedom, his honour, his property and his soul. A person dying while protecting that freedom is considered a ‘martyr’.
With regard to the facts of the case, Supreme Court observed that it was proved that the policemen and other officials sought to arrest the Judgment Creditor without any right and that they curtailed his freedom. [Source: Judgment For Sale]
|
2 |
Exhibit a2; b2 |
Judgment (Final, Legal Court of Appeal) of Ministry of Justice, Abu Dhabi, UAE |
:
Annotations: Exhibit a3; b3
Yet another gross violation of Human Rights was the dare devil action of the Executive of deporting the Judgment Creditor from the country as if the Judgment Creditor was convicted for a crime by the ‘Court of Law’, ignoring the concurrent judicial declaration of the Courts in UAE, the Court of First Instance and the Supreme Court. While so deporting the Judgment Creditor, the Executive Branch was well aware that ‘the reason shown in the deportation order was against the truth.
The deportation order was prepared with the false and fabricated statement, with an intention to save face and simultaneously to avoid paying any reparations. The fraud committed by the Executive Branch of Abu Dhabi has caused grave injury to the Judgment Creditor, that has left him in the worst position than he was in before the fraud.
The U.S. Supreme Court has quoted that, “There can be no doubt that the continuation of a malicious prosecution beyond the initial act of instigation may inflict additional damage upon the victim”.
The Judgment Creditor was subjected to total deprivation of his liberty, his business establishments, loss of his accumulated savings and properties, and a great suffering in his dignity as a human individual. Each deprivation by itself justifies the strongest action by the competent authority, in the light of the solid evidence placed before it. [Source: Judgment For Sale]
|
3 |
Exhibit a3; b3 |
'Deportation Order' of General Directorate Police, Abu Dhabi, UAE |
Annotations: Exhibit a4; b4
Deprivation of the entire property and life savings constitute a grave violation of Human Rights and the very Right to Life. There are multiple infractions of Human Rights, which constitute a more serious case calling for strongest action on the part of the competent authority. The right to livelihood cannot be subjected to individual fancies of the person in authority.
The ‘Debtor, the Government of Abu Dhabi, UAE‘ will stand as the fiscally responsible party until the Court Judgment is satisfied. His responsibility to do so will pass on to his successor-in-office; the successor regime is obliged to compensate the victim of state wrongs.
|
4 |
Exhibit a4; b4 |
'No Entry to UAE' Endorsement in the Passport of Petitioner |
Annotation: Exhibit a5
PURSUIT OF LEGAL REMEDIES IN INDIA.
The Judgment Creditor fought for justice by invoking all legal flora, including the High Court of Delhi and the Supreme Court of India, by filing the Writ Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1996. The Supreme Court found merit in the case suggested that the Delhi High Court could be approached in the matter under Article 226. The Delhi High Court by its judgment dated 20-11-1997, directed the Government of India to settle the issue within two months of the date of the judgment.
|
5 |
Exhibit a5 |
In the High Court of Delhi, Appellate Civil Jurisdiction: 20/11/1997 |
Annotations: Exhibit (a)1; (a)2
A Representation to the proposed Extradition Treaty between India and the UAE:-
After filing the ‘Whistleblower lawsuit’ in Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Delhi against the head of United Arab Emirates (UAE), who have perpetrated significant abuses, embezzlement of property, fraud, and other heinous crimes, a representation on 24-11-1997 in view of the proposed Extradition Treaty with UAE, was submitted to the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India. A copy of the same had been handed over, in person, to the then President of India Shri K.R.Narayanan during his official visit to Kerala in 1999.
India ratified the treaty with the UAE in 2000 but a country cannot extradite its nationals under the Extradition Treaty.
|
6 |
Exhibit (a)1 |
A Representation by Shri. P.K. Jabir, on India-UAE Extradition Treaty |
7 |
Exhibit (a)2 |
A Flashback and Recognition of the Representation - Article by Shri. P.K. Jabir |
00
Annotations: Exhibit (b)1; (b)2
The shocking history of ‘Al Wathba Central Prison', Abu Dhabi and the Censored Letters from Prison:-
On reaching India, in 1996 Mr Jabir had taken the documented evidence of pain and suffering of hundreds of Al-Wathba prisoners to the United Nations and other International NGOs. The communication to the UN body, Geneva, [Link] has given some effect to the life of inmates in the most notorious prison in Abu Dhabi, UAE.
Here is a few letters of appreciations to him in the progress of prison conditions by his ex-inmates at Al Wathba Prison, Abu Dhabi. The censor's seal is visible in each and every page. As to maintain security the prison administrators take steps by various means as such censoring the correspondence of prisoners.
Read the shocking history of ‘Al Wathba’ Central Prison in his article here - 'Al Wathba’ Central Prison, Abu Dhabi, UAE, and a ‘Culture of Deception & Secrecy'
|
8 |
Exhibit (b)1 |
Letter from Mr. George Titus (Co-Founder, UAE Exchange) |
9 |
Exhibit (b)2 |
Letter from Mr. Abdulla Khoori, Emirati Citizen |
Annotations: Exhibit (a)1; (b)2
The Documented Evidence of the Most Heinous Forms of Torture by Abu Dhabi Police:-
“Pressure was exerted on his head, neck and all over the body, his hands tied behind his back and his feet tied together and blindfolded. His mouth and nose were shut tight with the same rag clothes and traumatized. He cried for breath". This savage style of torture took place in Abu Dhabi in 1995 to extort money and valuables from a bona fide investor, our client, who, unfortunately was born as an Indian!
The victim fell unconscious and was taken to hospital-emergency, Abu Dhabi Central Hospital. Treatment was made without removing the shackles, hands cuffed behind his back... Many X-rays were taken there in.
Our client was admitted in Hinduja hospital Mumbai, by the next day of his release from UAE Prison. There he was treated by different doctors, specialities including psychiatrist. Our client was advised diabetic treat due to the Pancreas disorder symptoms.
Our client have had a greater degree of psychological stress and physical harm as a consequence of brutal methods used by the Abu Dhabi police.
A near-death experience of our client and his first-hand knowledge of the realities are ample illustrations that goes into the very heart of the matter: A link to the testimonials of Mr Jabir is available here - 'The Serious Consequences - My Prison Life'.
|
10 |
Exhibit (a)1 |
Hospital Register Emergency Department, Abudhabi |
11 |
Exhibit (b)2 |
Hospital Register Hindula Hospital, Mumbai |
Annotations: Exhibit a1; a7
Our client have been unsuccessful in getting a sanction to pursue remedies in India against the offending State of UAE which is responsible vicariously for the crimes, torts and other illegal actions of its officials.
Under the provisions, the permission of the Government of India is needed to file a suit against a foreign country. The efforts to secure such permission through legal remedies entailed much time and expenses.
|
12 |
Exhibit a1 |
Ambassador of India, Abu Dhabi - United Arab Emirates: 21/09/1998 |
13 |
Exhibit a2 |
NHRC To Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi: 25/06/1998 (2 Pages) |
14 |
Exhibit a3 |
Secretary to the Minister of State, Ministry of External Affairs: 29/01/1998 |
15 |
Exhibit a4 |
H.H. Faisal, Govt-Ras Al Khaimah, UAE |
16 |
Exhibit a5 |
Secretary to the Minister of State, Ministry of External Affairs: 25/06/1999 |
17 |
Exhibit a6 |
Fax Message to UAE Ambassador, New Delhi, India 23/10/1999 |
18 |
Exhibit a7 |
To The Minister of State, Foreign Affairs, UAE: 31/03/1999 |
Annotations: Exhibit (a)1 to (a)18
Copies of Letters from Ministry, Indian Mission, other institutions and personalities in relation to ‘Jabir's Case'
The establishments of institutional arrangements for the welfare of 'Overseas Indian Community', as highlighted by the Government of India, are intentionally deceptive, untruthful and purport to demonstrate that there are procedural remedies or tactics!
|
19 |
Exhibit (a) 1 |
Secretary to Embassy of India, Abu Dhabi - United Arab Emirates: 21/12/1996 |
20 |
Exhibit (a) 2 |
Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer to National Human Rights Commission: 4/03/1997 |
21 |
Exhibit (a) 3 |
Centre for Human Rights, United Nations, Geneve: 28/02/1997 |
22 |
Exhibit (a) 4 |
Prime Minister's Office, New Delhi, India: 15/06/1998 |
23 |
Exhibit (a) 5 |
Smt. Vasundhara Raje, Minister of State for External Affairs: 16/06/1998 |
24 |
Exhibit (a) 6 |
O.Rajagopal, Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha: 19/06/1998 |
25 |
Exhibit (a) 7 |
Commonwealth Secretariat, Political Affairs, London: 22/06/1998 |
26 |
Exhibit (a) 8 |
Shri. I.K. Gujral, Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha: 23/06/1998 |
27 |
Exhibit (a) 9 |
Amnesty International, Secretariat, London: 16/08/1999 |
28 |
Exhibit (a) 10 |
Non Resident Keralites' Affairs (A)Dept, Government of Kerala: 18/12/1999 |
29 |
Exhibit (a) 11 |
Secretary to the Minister of State, Ministry of External Affairs: 07/09/2000 |
30 |
Exhibit (a) 12 |
B-diary proceedings of the court - High Court of Delhi-2003-2007 |
31 |
Exhibit (a) 13 |
Case No: WP(C) NO.6149/1998 Date of Judgement 19/09/2007 |
32 |
Exhibit (a) 14 |
Information sought under RTI Act Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi/11 Jul, 2012 (PDF) |
33 |
Exhibit (a) 15 |
Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi under RTI No. RTI/551/763/2012/26 Sep, 2012 |
34 |
Exhibit (a) 16 |
Embassy of India, Abu Dhabi under RTI MEA No.997/CPVRTI/2012/26 Nov, 2012 |
35 |
Exhibit (a) 17 |
Indo-Gulf Reparation - Timeline Submissions & Responses - 2018 [2nd Page] |
36 |
Exhibit (a) 18 |
View Publication Page 'Jabir Case Exhibits & Features' |
‘UAE-India Judgments For Sale' - Features
‘Indo-Gulf Reparation Mechanisms' - Features
[]
|
|
|
|
