Gujarat Riots| Issues In Zakia Jafri's Complaint At Best Related To Dereliction of Service, Not Criminality : Mukul Rohatgi For SIT Tells Supreme Court

On Thursday, Senior Advocate, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, appearing on behalf of the SIT in the petition filed by Zakia Jafri before the Supreme Court, continued with his arguments. Refuting the challenge of the Petitioner to the SIT Closure Report, which had absolved the highest State functionaries of the allegation of conspiracy in the Gujarat riots of 2002, Mr. Rohatgi argued that the SIT had shown utmost commitment to the process of investigation. A Bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar took up the part-heard matter for further hearing. Mr. Rohatgi vehemently controverted the submissions of the Petitioner that the SIT was trying to shield someone or something. He argued that on the contrary, the details in the Closure Report demonstrate the extent to which the SIT went to in order to conduct investigation in the matter, keeping in view and often exceeding the mandate of the Supreme Court. The Special Investigation Team (SIT), which was appointed by the Supreme Court in 2008 to investigate the nine major cases of riots in Gujarat, was later bestowed with the responsibility to look into the complaint filed by Zakia Jafri against the state functionaries alleging conspiracy in the Gujarat riots. Subsequently, the closure report filed by SIT was challenged citing the lack of investigation in the matter. The Magistrate accepted the contents of the closure report and refused to pass orders of further investigation. The High Court also did not think it fit to interfere, but made an observation that the Trial Court had the power by virtue of the order of the Supreme Court to direct for further investigation in the matter. In quest of further probe into the riots of 2002, Zakia has now approached the Supreme Court. Recalling that the Court on the last date of hearing had asked Mr. Rohatgi the date of the judgment of the trial court in the Gulberg matter, he informed - "Before I commence I wanted to indicate 2-3 things. Your lordships wanted to know that date of trial court judgement in Gulberg...17.06.2016. Matter pending in appeal in HC."The Bench confirmed, "24 convicted, 39 acquitted."Referring to the Gulberg trial, Mr. Rohatgi revealed that though the trial was over and the appeal was pending before the Gujarat High Court, a chargsheet has been filed in the matter pertaining to a juvenile and an absconder. "There is a chargesheet pertaining to a juvenile and an absconder pending. That might be a smaller splinter."Moving on to his second point, Mr. Rohatgi submitted that Zakia Jafri, widow of Ehsan Jafri, lodged the complaint in 2006. But, later when she went to the Gujarat High Court seeking her complaint to be registered as an FIR, she was joined by Teesta Setalvad. It was specifically pointed out by Mr. Rohatgi, that the High Court had elaborately discussed that Ms. Setalvad did not have locus standi in the matter. "The second point - The complainant is a lady called Zakia Jafri, wife of former MP Ehsan Jafri. So, Zakia Jafri, the widow, had made a complaint in 2006….When she went to HC seeking direction to register her complaint as FIR, Petition 2 had joined, who is, Ms. Setalvad, head of the NGO. The HC in the order devoted several pages to say she had no locus."The Bench reminded Mr. Rohatgi, "That is side issue now."Informing he was aware of the same, he insisted the court to note it for the time being - "I would request your lordship to just note that."Mr. Rohatgi beseeched the Court to consider his argument that the approach taken by the Petitioner with respect to the complaint suggests that a parallel proceeding is going on. Clarifying that while the trial in Gulberg was ongoing, the Supreme Court had sympathized with the complainant's circumstances and asked the SIT to 'look into' the complaint in the nature of further material. The Petitioner had later filed a protest petition, wherein they have moved further beyond the allegations made in the original complaint. Arguing that the mandate of the SIT was limited to 'looking at' the complaint, he submitted - "Chargesheet filed till 2009 in Gulberg, stay lifted in 2009, trial commenced in 2009. I want to urge that a parallel system is going on...Trial is proceeding in Gulberg at the same time taking sympathy this Court told SIT to look into the complaint. Protest in 2013, 1200 pages, it is far far beyond the complaint...The main case is proceeding, this is just further material. It is in this conspectus your lordship will view this proceeding. The order of this court is the guiding light. Today it is as if this is a standalone case, the other side said take the protest as a complaint."At this juncture the Bench inquired, "Did the Petitioner participate in the trial in Gulberg? In the closure report you have examined how many additional persons?"In response Mr. Rohatgi informed the Bench,"Complaint was examined as Prosecution witness...

Gujarat Riots| Issues In Zakia Jafri's Complaint At Best Related To Dereliction of Service, Not Criminality : Mukul Rohatgi For SIT Tells Supreme Court

Sohini Chowdhury

Tags