'People Died Due to Police Action, Inaction, Complicity. Who Will Look At This?': Kapil Sibal Argues For Zakia Jafri In Gujarat Riots Case

The Supreme Court on Tuesday commenced the final hearing on a petition by Zakia Ahsan Jafri's plea challenging the SIT report giving clean chit to the then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi and other high functionaries in the case alleging larger conspiracy behind Gujarat riots of 2002.A Bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar heard detailed submissions made by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal arguing for the petitionerZakia Jarfi, widow of Congress MLA Ehsan Jafri who was killed in the Gulberg Housing Society massacre during the 2002 Gujarat Riots, has approached the Supreme Court through a special leave petition challenging the SIT report which ruled out any "larger conspiracy" by high state functionaries in instigating the communal riots following the Godhra massacre. In 2017, the Gujarat High Court had rejected her challenge against the Magistrate's dismissal of her protest complaint against the SIT's closure report.Courtroom Exchange:Evidence Available Must Have Been Taken Into Account: Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal For Jafri At the outset Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal took the Bench through the facts of the matter and the issue involved.He submitted that the matter pertains to the Gujarat riots. In 2006, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Gujarat DGP alleging that even before that horrible incident of Godhra, there were certain prior incidents which instigated communal riots"There is evidence ,evidence not provided by me but by intelligence officers, this evidence must be taken into account to ascertain if offence has been committed. Evidence related to facts that police was not taking action, hate speeches were being made, false information was being provided to people. It is in in the context that that this court appointed amicus", Sibal submitted. Magistrate Duty Bound To Take Cognizance If Information Provided:Mr Sibal submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that neither the Magistrate nor the SIT acted on the information provided by the petitioner. "The matter was relegated back to the Magistrate and the Magistrate had said that he doesn't have power and he won't act on the protest petition filed by the complainant. Even the SIT didn't take any evidence. Magistrate is duty bound to take note of the information and take cognisance. Whether SIT said no case has been made out is wholly irrelevant. If I can provide that information to the Magistrate, the Magistrate is duty bound to take cognisance. Neither the Magistrate, nor the revisional court has done that." Sibal said.List of Dates:Taking the court through the important dates and sequence of events, Mr Sibal stated that on 9.10.2003, Senior Advocate Harish Salve was appointed as the amicus Curiae in the matter. On 21.11.03 Supreme Court issued notices in transfer petition filed by NHRC seeking transfer of trial and stayed the trial in Gulbarg society massacre case. On 08.06.2006, the present petitioner Zakia Jafri filed a complaint to the DGP Gujarat wherein the complaint categorically alleged that there is a widespread conspiracy which led to the crumbling of law and order situation in Gujarat after Godhra carnage.On April 26, 2009, Supreme Court directed SIT to examine the petitioners complaint dated 08.06.2006 and submit a report to Supreme Court within 3 months. On January 9, 2010, Supreme Court recorded in its order that having regard to complexity and gravity of the case, very large number of witnesses are to be examined and large number of documents are to be revived from the state government. On 6/5/2010 Supreme Court stayed pronouncement of judgement of ongoing cases. The SIT Chairman the filed its report before the top court. In 2010 SIT filed further report on investigation. On 23/11/2010 Amicus Curiae was changed and Advocate Prashant Bhushan was appointed. On 20th Jan 2011 Amicus submitted a report on preliminary investigation.Then SIT was directed to look into amicus findings and if need be carry out further investigation. On 5/5/2011 report of SIT's further investigation was provided to Amicus to examine the same and submit its independent assessment, leaving it open for Amicus to interact with any of the witnesses.Later, the SLP was disposed of by Supreme Court and directions were given to SIT to forward final report to the Court that took cognisance of CR 67/2020 (the Gulbarg case). It was directed to hear complainant before filing closure report.SIT Didn't Look At Facts Part Of Official Records: Mr Sibal submitted that the SIT was already in seizure of several facts which were part of official records but it ignored them while filing its closure report. In protest petition the complainant relied on those official records, and court did not look at them."SIT was constituted under SC order?" the Bench asked."Yes." Sibal said.He added that the Original report by SIT Member Mr Malhotra set out a finding that "offences were committed and substantiated"."That was taken into...

'People Died Due to Police Action, Inaction, Complicity. Who Will Look At This?': Kapil Sibal Argues For Zakia Jafri In Gujarat Riots Case

Srishti Ojha

Tags