Gujarat Riots- "Protest Complaint Has Gone Outside The Hands Of Complainant, It Shows A Sinister Side to Keep This As A Pot Boiling": SIT Tells Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday continued hearing the arguments of Senior Advocate, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, appearing on behalf of the SIT in the petition by Zakia Jafri challenging the SIT closure report giving clean chit to the highest functionaries of the State of Gujarat, including the then Chief Minister, who were alleged to have played a pivotal role in the Gujarat riots of 2002. A Bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar took up the part-heard matter for further hearing. The crux of the argument of Senior Advocate, Mr. Kapil Sibal, that the SIT had displayed a flagrant lack of commitment in investigating the crucial aspects that had the potential of establishing a larger conspiracy, was emphatically countered by Mr. Rohatgi. As per his submissions, the SIT had looked into all the allegations made by the Petitioner, more than often exceeding the remit of the Supreme Court imposed on it by its order dated 12.09.2011 out of an abundance of caution. In 2008, the Supreme had appointed the SIT to hand over charge of the investigation of the nine major incidents of riots in Gujarat. In 2006, the Petitioner, who had lost his husband in the riots, had filed a complaint against the highest functionaries of the State alleging conspiracy. The complaint was not taken up and the Petitioner approached the High Court and subsequently the Supreme Court. In 2011 the Apex Court directed the already appointed SIT to look into the plea of the Petitioner. Before making submissions, Mr. Rohatgi reminded the Court that on the last occasion it had asked him to file the testimonies of Zakia, Rahul Sharma and Ashish Khetan before the Trial Court. Accordingly, he assured he would place it before the Bench, during the course of the day. At the outset Mr. Rohatgi brought it to the Court's attention that he had compiled the relevant portions of the Trial Court judgment in the Gulberg matter and would like to eventually read out the same to demonstrate the overlapping allegations made before the trial court and the ones made in the present proceedings. He stated - "I have got testimony of complaint, testimony of Rahul Sharma and testimony of Mr. Khetan. I have compiled the Trial Court judgment in the Gulberg incident. Some of the paragraphs are important to show the overlap in this case. The matter was decided and the appeal is pending."Mr. Rohatgi further pointed out that the allegation of conspiracy was also before the Trial Court. After hearing arguments of both sides, the Trial Court had rejected it. He submitted - "There is no material to show a larger conspiracy. That was argued and that was decided...this knocks out the whole case of Petitioner, whose case was on larger conspiracy, which now they are not arguing."Recapitulating his submissions so far, he highlighted that the Petitioner is relying on the affidavits, testimonies of three star witnesses namely, Shreekumar, Rahul Sharma and Sanjiv Bhatt. As per Mr. Rohatgi, the complaint is replete with the statements made by these witnesses in affidavits before the Nanavati Commission. Referring to the order of the Supreme Court dated 12.09.2011 as the 'pole star', Mr. Rohatgi reiterated that the remit imposed on SIT was to 'look into' the complaint of Zakai in order to find additional material in the Gulberg matter. He averred - "We should remember like a pole star, that in order dated 12.09.2011 this Court while referring the matter said SIT please look into the complaint. Because the complainant belongs to Gulberg,...this court said please look into the complaint because there can be additional material relating to the Gulberg incident...SIT had looked into every paragraph of the complaint. It examined all the accused, these star witnesses…"To contextualise his arguments, Mr. Rohatgi summarised the incidents depicting how the fateful day unfolded. He submitted - The train reached Godhra at about 7 o'clock in the morning. It was to reach at night, but wa late by 5 hours. There was an attack by miscreants...Two bogies completely burned...The administration took stock of the situation, higher ups went there, they decided to do a post mortem right there. Now, even that move is being doubted in the Protest petition. The bodies were moved in trucks to Amhedabad. They were handed over by afternoon...There is a meeting on 27.02.2002 by political leaders, later in the morning...as a reaction some kind of riot commenced. Meeting of the highest authority in the afternoon of 28.02.2002...Army is called on the same day...Army was airlifted and brought to the State commencing from midnight 28.02.2002.The Bench pointed out that Mr. Rohatgi had missed out the event of buildup before the Godhra massacre took place on 27.02.2002, that was specifically emphasised upon by Mr. Sibal. It stated - "You missed one event..Building up of the incident before Godhra.Mr....

Gujarat Riots- "Protest Complaint Has Gone Outside The Hands Of Complainant, It Shows A Sinister Side to Keep This As A Pot Boiling": SIT Tells Supreme Court

Sohini Chowdhury

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sohini Chowdhury

Gujarat Riots- "Protest Complaint Has Gone Outside The Hands Of Complainant, It Shows A Sinister Side to Keep This As A Pot Boiling": SIT Tells Supreme Court

Sohini Chowdhury

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sohini Chowdhury

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers