Gujarat Riots- "If You Stoke The Fire, The Pot Will Boil.": Kapil Sibal In Response To SIT And States's Critique Of Petitioner's "Attempt To Keep The Pot Boiling"

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard the closing arguments of the Solicitor General, Mr. Tushar Mehta on behalf of the State of Gujarat, defending the proactive measures taken by the State in the aftermath of the Godhra massacre. This was followed by the submissions made by Senior Advocate, Mr. Kapil Sibal appearing on behalf of Zakia Jafri, who has approached the Apex Court assailing the clean chit given by SIT to the highest functionaries of the State of Gujarat, alleged to have played a vital role in the Gujarat riots of 2002. A Bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheswari and CT Ravikumar took up the part heard matter for further hearing. At the outset, the Solicitor General was critical of the motivations of Teesta Setalvad (Petitioner No. 2) in the present proceedings, which he argued was to simply malign the State of Gujarat. Apart from that, Mr. Solicitor General, vehemently argued that the State had taken all measures that it possibly could, after the Sabarmati Express was torched and during the ensuing riots. To substantiate his claim, he relied on the Report of the Commission of Enquiries set up by the State with respect to the 2002 riots. In his rebuttal, Mr. Sibal fervently reiterated his submissions on the lack of investigation by SIT. The Solicitor General continued with the line of argument that he had taken, on the last occasion. He relied on a Gujarat High Court judgment on the allegation of embezzlement of public funds donated to two NGOs run by Teesta Setalvad and her husband, to demonstrate her intention in pursuing the present matter. As per his submissions, Setalvad exploited the victims of the Gujarat riots for her private interest. "pg 126 I will read [of the Gujarat HC on allegation of embezzlement of funds in NGOs run by Petitioner No. 2 herein]"Not being able to see Mr. Sibal on the screen, the Bench asked if he was present. "We thought you lost connection."On a lighter vein, Mr. Sibal replied that - "I cannot lose connection with the Court. Then where will I go?"Recapitulating the allegation made in by Zakia, Mr. Mehta retorted that the State had taken preemptive measures. He supplemented the SIT report with the findings of the Commission of Enquiry, whose mandate included the preventive steps taken by the State. It was submitted - "The allegation is that after the aftermath of the Godhra train burning and the riots, the State Govt. did not take steps. There are SIT reports. As additional material I refer to this. A Commission of Enquiry was set up under the Enquiries Act headed by a former judge of this Hon'ble Court. One of the terms of the Commission was preventive steps taken by the State…They collected voluminous documents and came to a conclusion. I would refer to only the conclusion."Mr. Mehta suggested that exercising jurisdiction under Article 136, if any further exercise was entertained by the Court then it would not be in the larger interest of the public. "In a 136 petition, any further exercise at their (petitioner) behest would not be in public interest."On the efficiency of the administrative measures taken by the Government, Mr. Mehta referred to the Commission's report which stated - "...the material discloses that an emergency meeting of the Chief Secretaries, ACS Home and Director General of Police was held in the morning to decide the course of action to be taken. The DGP gave directions to senior police officers in the afternoon to proceed to Godhra and other communally sensitive areas immediately and supervise the law and order situation there. One additional DGP was also sent to Godhra…IG was also directed to go to Godhra…on 27.02.2002, the DGP by fax instructed all commissioners of police, superintendent of police and range heads to take required measure…Another fax message was sent… to take all preemptive steps…" With respect to the deployment of police personnel and requisitioning of the army he submitted - "[The Conclusion] Regular police force was put on alert, the ones on leave were asked to join immediately. On 27.02.2002 for deployment of additional police force only 9 companies and 1.5 platoons of CRP were available in the State…7 companies were allotted to different districts and only 2 companies and 1.5 platoons remained for further deployment…After obtaining permission of the Central Government, 4 companies of Rapid Action Force available in State were also deployed...In the afternoon State requested Centre for 10 companies of Central Paramilitary force and to make available Central Reserve Police Force...The Govt of India approved deployment of 6 companies of CISF, 17 companies of BSF and 6 companies border wing home guards…the first central paramilitary force to arrived comprised 3 companies of CISF made available to Vadodara, Ahmedabad and Godhra…"Referring to the Commission of Enquiries Report on the meeting of 27.02.2002 at...

Gujarat Riots- "If You Stoke The Fire, The Pot Will Boil.": Kapil Sibal In Response To SIT And States's Critique Of Petitioner's "Attempt To Keep The Pot Boiling"

Sohini Chowdhury

Tags