[Gujarat Riots] "Deeply Sorry Milords, But That Is My Case": Kapil Sibal To Supreme Court's Question, "How Can You Attack SIT Appointed By This Court?"

On Tuesday, while making submissions in the Zakia Jafri's appeal, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal contended that the Special Investigation Team had neither looked into the reports by the National Human Rights Commission, Election Commission, Committee on Empowerment of Women set up by Parliament with respect to the Gujarat riots nor did they examine the members of such commissions. A Bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar heard submissions in the plea challenging the SIT report giving clean chit to the highest State functionaries in the Gujarat riots of 2002. During the course of the day, Mr. Sibal took the court through the observations made by statutory, constitutional and parliamentary bodies with respect to the Gujarat riots and demonstrated the failure of the SIT to investigate the same. Recapitulating the arguments he made on the previous date of hearing, Mr. Sibal submitted that - "First charge deals with Buildup...The Magistrate nor the HC deal with it. Newspaper report in Faizabad - neither the Magistrate nor the HC dealt with it. The Tehelka tapes - neither the Magistrate nor the HC deals with it." Collaboration of the key State functionaries with the accusedThereafter, the Bench's attention was drawn towards the issue of collaboration of the key functionaries of the State with the accused persons. Referring to the documents submitted by him along with the Protest Petition, Mr. Sibal argued that - "There was glaring evidence of collaboration. The bureaucracy became collaborators. Not all but the key people became collaborators. The political class became collaborators. The VHP, The Bajrang Dal, the RSS became collaborators. This is the stark story of collaboration with the accused." The Bench raised a concern with respect to the argument made Mr. Sibal. Stating that motive could not be, possibly, attributed to SIT nor can it be accused of collaboration, Bench noted - "The collaboration with the local police at ground level we understand and would look into it. How can you complain about SIT appointed by the Court?...This argument if we start entertaining it is a reflection on the SIT appointed by the Court itself. Is that your argument?"In response Mr. Sibal stated - "Yes, I am deeply sorry Milords but that is going to be my argument." Reminding Mr. Sibal that the same SIT had eventually filed chargesheet in the other 8 cases and convictions were upheld in those matter, the Bench observed: "You are attacking the manner of investigation done by SIT? It is the same SIT that had filed chargesheet in other cases and they were convicted. No such grievance in those proceedings." The Bench clarified that - "Collaboration is a strong term for an SIT appointed by the Court. Attributing motives to the SIT appointed by Court" - we are on that. It was pointed out by Mr. Sibal, that the allegations of collaboration was not against SIT in the the sense the Court had perceived it, the submission was that the SIT did not make investigations regarding the collaboration and the allied issues, when there was evidence before it. He submitted - "SIT had knowledge of Tehelka tapes. They knew about the judgment of Guj HC that authenticated the tapes. That is a question that anyone would ask. Why was the defence accepted by the SIT? What does it show - was SIT collaborating and saving some people. Why ? I don't know." Hearing Mr. Sibal's submission the Bench demarcated the extent of his submission that the Bench felt was permissible at the present stage of the hearing - "You can pitch for the time being that these are the materials that had to be looked into by the SIT. No explanation forthcoming. That we can understand. But attributing motive would be going too far. Error of judgment will be explained by SIT, then only you can pitch it to that extent." Acknowledging the Bench's concern Mr. Sibal rephrased his submission - "I'll pitch it lower, then. The officials who had ex facie committed offence were not prosecuted by the SIT.Mr. Sibal pointed out that till date no explanation of these omissions were provided by SIT and therefore the same cannot be done at this stage by oral submissions. In a lighter vein the Bench remarked - "Maybe you have missed it in the record of the cases." Record of proceedings before NHRC - not looked into; Statement of members of Commission not taken Thereafter, Mr. Sibal went back to the paperbook to refer to the record of proceedings before the NHRC, which had taken up the matter suo moto based on reports of inaction of police and highest functionaries of the state of Gujarat. "Pg 8 of Vol. X - Proceedings of the NHRC of the situation in Gujarat, from March 1 to July 2002. As your Lordship knows that NHRC functions under the Human Rights Act...We [NHRC] had expected a detailed reply from the Govt of Guj now...

[Gujarat Riots] "Deeply Sorry Milords, But That Is My Case": Kapil Sibal To Supreme Court's Question, "How Can You Attack SIT Appointed By This Court?"

Sohini Chowdhury

Tags