[Gujarat Riots] 'Not Interested In Targeting Anybody', Says Kapil Sibal; Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Zakia Jafri's Plea

On Thursday, the Supreme Court heard the rejoinder and sur-rejoinder arguments in a petition filed by Zakia Ehsan Jafri challenging the closure report filed by SIT discarding the allegations of larger conspiracy by high state functionaries and other entities in the Gujarat riots of 2002 that ensued the Godhra train massacre. Over a course of fourteen days, a Bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar heard the submissions of Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Senior Advocate Mr. Mukul Rohatgi appearing on behalf of SIT, at great length. The crux of Mr. Sibal's argument was that the SIT did not conduct investigation on the crucial aspects of the matter, which was essential to establish a larger conspiracy. He questioned the inadequacy in the investigation, inter alia, with respect to police inaction and complicity, presence of two Ministers, namely, Ashok Bhatt and Zadafia in the Ahmedabad city police control room, mobile phone data of police officials, VHP affiliated persons appointed as Public Prosecutors etc. Displeased, that the evidence collected and presented by the Petitioner from the official records have been left unconsidered by SIT in toto, Mr. Sibal submitted that 'no Investigator with a sense of Justice will discard these evidence'. It was especially pointed out by him that the Tehelka tapes that had succeeded in securing conviction in the Naroda Pateya trial, were strategically overlooked by the Investigating Agency. Mr. Sibal went a step ahead to argue that the manner in which the investigation was conducted by SIT, it appeared that they were trying to hide something. In conclusion, he had reckoned that "This is a case where the Majesty of Law has been deeply injured.' Per contra, Mr. Rohatgi had argued that the SIT did its job, often exceeding the remit set out by the Supreme Court, in their pursuit of justice. He emphasised that Zakia's allegations largely pointed towards dereliction of duty and did not disclose any criminality. Moreover, he expressed his suspicion that at present the Petition is being driven not by Zakia, who is the aggrieved one, but by Petitioner No. 2 i.e. Teesta Setalvad who has ulterior motives in pursuing the same. On the plea of the Petitioner to direct further investigation, Mr. Rohatgi submitted that if it is allowed by the Supreme Court it would be in the teeth of the constitutional rights of the accused, who have already undergone trial and have been acquitted. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta appearing for the State of Gujarat also made brief submissions on the alacrity of the State in handling the riots. He relied on an order of Gujarat High Court to dispute the bonafides of the Petitioner No. 2 in pursuing the present petition. In his rejoinder argument apart from pointing out the inadequacies in the investigation, Mr. Sibal retorted to the diatribe against Teesta Setalvad - "If you stoke the fire, the pot will boil" It was also pointed out by him that Mr. Rohatgi had extensively dealt with the allegations against the then Chief Minister, which he had not read while making his submissions. Emphasising on the dereliction on the part of SIT to consider the undisputed evidence in the form of Tehelka tapes, Mr. Sibal submitted -"In fact, the prosecution and SIT want this material to be effaced from the memory of this nation." Rejoinder Arguments by Mr. Sibal Continuing with his rejoinder argument, on Thursday, Mr. Sibal submitted - "In Vol IX, your lordships will see that I had indicated yesterday that several matters cited by my Ld. Friend, Solicitor is sub-judice."Bonafide of Petitioner No. 2 Countering the Respondents' claims of ulterior motive of Teesta Setalvad, Mr. Sibal made submissions to depict the nature of work undertaken by her organization to establish her bonafide- "Kindly come to Pg 95. The organisation of Teesta Setalvad does not deal with these issues. To show what they do - was involved with legal aid, citizenship, helping people in Assam, forest rights, grassroots fellowship, food relief…When floods took place in Mumbai we did relief work, compensation to victims of terror attacks,...relief work during COVID. Painting us as someone who is anti-Gujarat is not right."He further relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court which had expunged caustic remarks made by High Court against Teesta - "At one stage the HC made very caustic remarks about her. It is not a reported judgment. We will hand it over to your lordship. Then this court expunged those remarks..…The expunged remarks about Teesta Setalvad is in (2004) 10 SCC 88."Role of Magistrate in context of final reportMr. Sibal argued that the role of Magistrate while considering the closure report is to see whether he suspects that the material discloses any offence; they are not to go into the correctness of the material at ...

[Gujarat Riots] 'Not Interested In Targeting Anybody', Says Kapil Sibal; Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Zakia Jafri's Plea

Sohini Chowdhury

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

[Gujarat Riots] 'Not Interested In Targeting Anybody', Says Kapil Sibal; Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Zakia Jafri's Plea

Sohini Chowdhury

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers