Gujarat Riots- Zakia Jafri's Plea Against Clean Chit To Narendra Modi-LIVE UPDATES

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

9 Dec 2021 5:11 AM GMT

  • Gujarat Riots- Zakia Jafris Plea Against Clean Chit To Narendra Modi-LIVE UPDATES

    Supreme Court to continue hearing today the petition filed by Zakia Jafri challenging the SIT's clean chit to the then Gujarat CM Narendra Modi & other high functionaries in the #GujaratRiots of 2002.A Bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheswari and CT Ravikumar will hear the matter today. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, on behalf of Zakia Jafri, will conclude his...

    Supreme Court to continue hearing today the petition filed by Zakia Jafri challenging the SIT's clean chit to the then Gujarat CM Narendra Modi & other high functionaries in the #GujaratRiots of 2002.

    A Bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheswari and CT Ravikumar will hear the matter today.

    Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, on behalf of Zakia Jafri,  will conclude his rejoinder arguments today. Later,  Mukul Rohatgi will surrejoin.

    On Wednesday, apart from contending lack of investigation and questioning the conduct of SIT in the particular matter, Mr. Sibal also argued on the bonafides of Petitioner No. 2 (Teesta Setalvad), against whom he submitted the State and SIT had engaged in a lengthy 'diatribe'. Reiterating his submission for the sake of clarity, he argued that upon diligent investigation of the Tehelka tapes, material with respect to other people would have surfaced, which ultimately could have been perused, to establish a larger conspiracy. Countering Mr. Rohatgi's submissions commending the SIT for an impeccable investigation, Mr. Sibal iterated that in fact, it was the inadequacies in the investigation that has affected the case of larger conspiracy alleged by the Petitioner against the highest State functionaries in the Gujarat riots of 2002.

    Stay On This Page For Live Updates From The Hearing.

    Live Updates

    • 9 Dec 2021 6:19 AM GMT

      Rohatgi: The amicus was there, Petitioner was there. Amicus said do some more investigation. Mr. Sukla did and gave 2 more reports.

    • 9 Dec 2021 6:19 AM GMT

      Rohatgi: Therefore, Milord, to say that I should have arrested everybody in the sting on the basis of the sting is an unfounded submission. In May 2010, Mr. Malhotra concluded and said there was no other cognisable material in the complaint.

    • 9 Dec 2021 6:18 AM GMT

      Rohatgi: Your lordship remembers I said that there is no doctoring in the sting, but what is the probative value of sting is another thing. In law it is in the nature of extra-judicial confession.

      Mr. Rohatgi briefly refers to Jain Hawala Diary case.

    • 9 Dec 2021 6:18 AM GMT

      Rohatgi: I have read somewhere they (Petitioner) said that SIT had supported. That this material of sting, we found unreliable, but this was given in 3 cases - Gulberg, Naroda Patya, Naroda Gaam. At least in Gulberg, the material was rejected.

    • 9 Dec 2021 6:04 AM GMT

      Rohatgi: The court will look at it (chargesheet), it can either accept the chargesheet, direct further investigation or reject.

    • 9 Dec 2021 6:04 AM GMT

      Rohatgi: That is the difference between the role of investigating agency and the court. As far as IO is concerned a chargesheet has to make a crystallised case against a party.

    • 9 Dec 2021 6:04 AM GMT

      Rohatgi: No chargesheet cannot be filed on suspicion. The chargesheet had to say that we find him guilty of murder. It is not only prosecutable material. They have to give material that they are guilty of some offences.

    • 9 Dec 2021 6:00 AM GMT

      Rohatgi: It is important because the court was aware that the trials were ongoing. It was not a virgin field that nobody took note of any offence. Today the importance of those words (SC order) dawn upon me.

    • 9 Dec 2021 6:00 AM GMT

      Rohatgi: The guiding star is the order of September 2011. Look into her(Petitioner) material to be filed in Godhra.

    • 9 Dec 2021 5:59 AM GMT

      Rohatgi: They(Petitioner) said Commission of Inquiry Report cannot be taken into consideration in any proceeding. My response is that the complaint is substantially from affidavits filled before a Commission.

    Next Story