Breaking News
Nagaland Post Logo
You are here:  Skip Navigation LinksHome » Show story
Counter rejoinder to S. I. Jamir
Published on 23 May. 2011 12:41 AM IST
Print  Text Size

Advocate, Moayanger Imchen representing home minister Imkong L. Imchen has said that NPCC president S. I. Jamir’s response to earlier Notice was “irrational, unreasonable, unwarranted and out of context.”
Expressing “utter disgust” at the rejoinder, the Advocate said S. I. Jamir’s response was “simply an act of timidity and cowardly retreat.” He further said the rejoinder was untenable either in facts or in law, as it was altogether out of the domain of the clarification/explanation sought.
The Advocate pointed out that his client “did not serve any legal notice but sought some specific clarification from him for his shocking, deplorable and highly personal remark.”
It was reminded that S. I. Jamir had wanted to know if Imkong L. lmchen would tell how many from his blood line were in the national service during the turbulent times. He said that the Notice was in general parlance categorically seeking clarification as S.I. Jamir’s remark against the individual of Imchen was found to be “illusory, ambiguous and obscure on our prudent and meticulous scrutiny.”
The Advocate went on to say that S. I. Jamir’s remark has intended to put stigma by maliciously questioning the bloodline of Imkong L. lmchen in national service during turbulent times “without any tenable and justiciable basis.”
The advocate, therefore, said a specific clarification was sought from S.I. Jamir in order to enable his client to explicitly respond.
“But it is very amusing to find that he (S.l.Jamir) has miserably failed to give/furnish any concrete, sensible and reasonable explanation on the specific points sought from him,” the Advocate said. Maintaining that it was the “factual position,” the Advocate reiterated on the same points and called upon S. I. Jamir to refrain from making “such knowingly crazy, absurd, callous and capricious statement/remark against the individual of Imkong L. Imchen.” He said S. I. Jamir’s statement/remark in some dailies appearing on May 15 was “prima facie intrusion in personal domain with diabolic design.”
He said repetition of such or similar remark (May 15) by S.I. Jamir would compel his client to initiate appropriate course of action in applicable court of law as required and permitted by traditional custom and usage, simultaneously with civil and penal proceedings/consequences in his (S.I. Jamir’s) own risk and cost without any further intimation reference or notice.

Comments:(0) Login or Register to post your Comment
(Available for registered users only)
More News
  • 1
  • 2