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

Rohatgi: The HC in 2007 gave her opportunity to file fresh complaint, she did not take it up. She was duty bound as a witness to tell the truth of what she knew. That also she breached, the duty towards the court.

Rohatgi: There are 2-3 aspects.First w.r.t. accused. If this is allowed and re-investigation permitted in Gulberg case,ppl who were acquitted and against whom no appeal lies, they will be jeopardised. That cannot be done because of the guarantee given to them by the Constitution.

Rohatgi: This is a 05.10.2017 judgment. Today we are in 2021. How is it going to impact person who was acquitted and no appeal was filed against them

Mr. Rohatgi reading relevant portions from the HC judgment. 

Rohatgi: Your lordship, see about Tehalka. HC says These findings [of TC] are based on sound reasoning and evidence before it.

Rohatgi: Correct. If I may say, even before 132, the HC is commenting at the stage also. At several places. For example hate speech, this is what the HC is writing.

Bench: pg 94 onwards these are findings of Magistrate.

Rohatgi: Last line of 130 is Tehalka.

Bench: This is culled out from the Magistrate till pg. 132

Rohatgi: Now kindly come to the HC judgment. It gave the entire history, now pg 94 para 14. talking about revision jurisdiction. Then it records Same thing, completely ad nauseam. Kindly turn to 126, this is the parading business. Then the control room issue. Hate speech.

Rohatgi: This judgment cannot be said to be a case where the court has not considered the protest.

Rohatgi: She knew her whole complaint is hearsay. So, you do not say any of this. How many years will you keep the pot boiling.