Gujarat Riots- 'If This Court Allows Any Further Investigation, It Would Be In The Teeth Of The Constitutional Rights Of Accused': Rohatgi Concludes His Arguments

On Thursday, Senior Advocate, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi appearing on behalf of SIT apart from refuting the allegation of the Petitioner that the SIT had given clean chit to the highest functionaries of the State without conducting due investigation, went a step further, to fervently controvert the plea that the Magistrate and the High Court did not delve into the crucial material before them. In the latter half of the proceedings, he was joined in by the Solicitor General appearing for the State of Gujarat. A Bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar, took up the part heard matter for further hearing. On the earlier occasions, Mr. Rohtagi had taken the Court through the findings of the SIT, observation made by the Nanavati Commission, the Trial Court judgment in the Gulberg matter qua the allegations made by the Petitioner. Highlighting the relevant portions from the Trial Court and High Court judgments to demonstrate the elaborate consideration of the allegations by the courts below, Mr. Rohatgi concluded his arguments on behalf of SIT. The Solicitor General, Mr. Tushar Mehta appearing for the State of Gujarat commenced with his submissions. Both, Mr. Mehta and Mr. Rohatgi was skeptical of the role of Petitioner No. 2 (Teesta Setalvad) in the present proceedings, to the extent that they indicated her participation was motivated. At the outset Mr. Rohatgi, recapitulated the judgment of the Trial Court pertaining to the riots in Gulberg, which had categorically found that there was no material to establish conspiracy. He submitted - "For the purpose of recapitulation. I had shown the judgement of Gulberg, where there was a finding that there was no conspiracy."To avoid any confusion, the Bench asked Mr. Rohatgi to take the court through the Trial Court and High Court judgments, one allegation at a time. "Thus far you have taken us to a closure report, allegation wise. Do the same exercise with the Trial Court and High Court."Allegation against the then Chief Minister Pointing out that that first allegation of the meeting of 27.02.2002, that is essentially against the then Chief Minister was not read by Petitioner and therefore he would also refrain from addressing the same. "I had started with the Trial Court order and I had gone, kindly turn to the 1st allegation. This is the meeting of 27.02.2002 not urged by the other side. So, I did not read it.But, he apprised the Court that the Petitioner's complaint is replete with the allegations against the Chief Minister. It is only in the present proceedings they have decided not to push this particular allegation. "It is for the first time before your lordship they have decided not to urge this. This is a major point in the complaint, and in the report."Parading of dead bodies Mr. Rohatgi submitted that he had already elaborately dealt with the issue of parading of dead bodies. The Trial Court, considering the issue, had found that there was no criminality in the decision to take the bodies in a truck from Godhra to Ahmedabad accompanied by a police convoy. Moreover the Trial Court also found no criminality in the decision to conduct post mortem on the railway tracks, considering the urgency of the situation. "At 223, I read point no. 2 the issue of parading, post-mortem, delivery of bodies. I had read this in detail. I have finished this point….Court found there was no criminality. The post mortem on the side of the track and transfer and delivery had no criminality."Ministers present in the control room With respect to the allegation of the two ministers, namely Asok Bhatt and Gordhan Zadafia, influence the control room at Ahmedabad, Mr. Rohatgi stated that it had been argued and discussed by the Trial Court. As per the SIT's report, one minister was indeed present, as a matter of protocol and for no other reason. "The third allegation is about the two ministers - Ashok Bhatt and Jadeja. Why there were in the control room? This has been argued, discussed...SIT found one minister was there, another was not."Statement of Sanjiv Bhatt and Shreekumar Reiterating the submissions in this regard, Mr. Rohatgi argued that the statement of Bhatt about being present at the meeting of 27.02.2002 has already been discarded as false. He submitted that both the SIT and the Nanavati Commission had found him unreliable and the Trial Court had considered the same. "Next is Sanjiv Bhatt discounted by SIT, Nanavati Commission"Coming to the statement and register of Shreekumar, Mr. Rohatgi submitted that he was a disgruntled officer as referred to by the Nanavati Commission, who had filed the register, which the Citizens' Tribunal calls the 'conscience register' with the 3rd affidavit. He took the Court the observations and findings recorded by the Trial Court to show that the said allegation had received full consideration of the Trial Court. ...

Gujarat Riots- 'If This Court Allows Any Further Investigation, It Would Be In The Teeth Of The Constitutional Rights Of Accused': Rohatgi Concludes His Arguments

Sohini Chowdhury

Tags