Gujarat 2002 riots: These questions are being requested on the choice of the Supreme Courtroom to dismiss Zakia Jafri’s petition


A Supreme Courtroom bench in its judgment of June 24 has upheld the report of the SIT or Particular Investigation Crew set as much as probe the 2002 Gujarat riots and gave clear chit to greater than 60 individuals, together with Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Advertisement

The courtroom’s order got here on the plea of ​​Zakia, spouse of former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri, who was killed within the riots, which was rejected by the courtroom.

Within the petition, the SIT report was challenged, that’s, it talked in regards to the alleged conspiracy of individuals in excessive positions within the 2002 Gujarat riots.

In an almost 450-page order, a bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar praised the SIT probe and stated, “The allegations in regards to the inaction or biased angle of the SIT in the course of the investigation are ridiculous.”

The bench noticed that “we recognize the tiring work finished by the workforce of SIT officers in a difficult atmosphere, and but they’ve been capable of full their work effectively.”

allegations of riots

Within the Gujarat riots, there have been allegations that the violence was pre-planned and that the mob who dedicated the violence had an alleged official exemption.

However the bench stated that the allegations of large-scale prior planning, conspiracy and involvement of senior officers remained unsubstantiated and there was no room for doubt about their involvement.

In response to statistics, greater than 1000 individuals have been killed within the Gujarat riots, largely Muslims. Earlier, round 60 Hindus have been killed within the Godhra practice fireplace.

Within the riots, 69 individuals, together with Ehsan Jafri, have been killed within the Gulberg Society bloodbath.

Zakia Jafri had filed a grievance towards 63 individuals, together with the then Chief Minister of Gujarat Narendra Modi, on the premise of which the Supreme Courtroom constituted the SIT.

The SIT had given its report in 2012.

BJP chief and Residence Minister Amit Shah welcomed the Supreme Courtroom’s resolution and stated in an interview , “Modi ji was additionally questioned however nobody demonstrated, employees of the entire nation didn’t collect in solidarity with Modi ji. I used to be additionally arrested. We didn’t carry out. When reality comes out with victory after such an extended struggle, it shines brighter than gold.”

Courtroom Feedback and Reactions on Teesta Setalvad, Sreekumar, Sanjeev Bhatt

Whereas BJP leaders and a piece of the media are calling the Supreme Courtroom’s resolution as one more proof of the 20 years of alleged propaganda towards the then Chief Minister Narendra Modi within the Gujarat riots being hole, some features of the courtroom order are being criticized. Feedback are additionally coming.

92 former bureaucrats, in a joint letter on the Supreme Courtroom order , stated, “In a shocking comment, the Supreme Courtroom praised the officers of the Particular Investigation Crew who saved the federal government and uprooted the appellants who challenged the SIT’s findings. “

The checklist of bureaucrats contains names like Wajahat Habibullah, AS Dulat, Harsh Mander, Amitabh Pandey, GK Pillai, Ok Sujatha Rao, Julio Ribeiro, NC Saxena and Javed Usmani.

Actually, within the order of the Supreme Courtroom, sharp remarks have been made on activist Teesta Setalvad and former senior police officer RB Sreekumar in Gujarat, after which the police took them into custody, appearing at lightning pace.

“On the finish of the day, it seems that the mixed effort of the disgruntled officers of the state of Gujarat and some others to create sensation, and so they have been conscious that the premise was false,” the courtroom stated.

In its order, the courtroom stated, “All those that have misused this course of, there’s a have to put them within the dock and take motion beneath the regulation towards them.”

A day after the order, BJP chief Amit Malviya tweeted, “Gujarat Police has arrested Fraud Activist Teesta Setalvad & Ex-IPS Officer RB Sreekumar, who’s accused of forging false paperwork in Gujarat riots investigation… Shall be with Sanjeev Bhatt who’s already in jail.”

Relating to Sanjiv Bhatt, the courtroom wrote, “Sanjeev Bhatt’s situation is even worse. He has been discovered responsible of homicide and of hiding medicine in a lawyer’s room in one other state. He claimed that he died on 27 February 2002. Was part of the assembly referred to as. However all of the officers current in that assembly have denied this declare.”

ये तस्वीर एक मार्च 2002 को गुजरात के अहमदाबाद की है.
picture caption,This image is from Ahmedabad, Gujarat on March 1, 2002.

doubts in regards to the future

Journalist and author Kingshuk Nag was editor of the newspaper Occasions of India in Gujarat in 2002 and lined the riots. He instructed the BBC that he by no means thought that Teesta and Sreekumar could be held liable for the Gulberg Society violence and its results.

In response to Justice Ok Chandru, a former choose of the Madras Excessive Courtroom, this sort of ‘revenge justice’ will cease the voices of non-governmental organizations and customary individuals elevating their voice for the reality in future.

The previous bureaucrats of their letter, requesting the courtroom to take away the remarks on Teesta Setalvad and so on from Para 88, additionally requested whether or not the Supreme Courtroom has determined that the petitioners and their legal professionals needs to be acted upon as a result of they’re hardworking. and engaged in it?

Within the letter, the bureaucrats requested, “What in regards to the NHRC experiences and the amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran’s report…which stated the position of then Chief Minister Narendra Modi needs to be probed?”

Additionally, it’s written within the letter that such phrases weren’t used earlier within the choices of the Supreme Courtroom.

In response to former Residence Secretary GK Pillai, the courts are relying too simply on the governments.

On the custody of Teesta Setalvad, she stated, “She shouldn’t be breaking the regulation. She is exercising her democratic rights to file petitions, evaluate petitions and so on. which have been given to her by the Structure.”

In response to GK Pillai, when the grievance got here towards Teesta Setalvad and so on., the police ought to examine the matter as a result of the report printed within the newspaper may be each true and false.

He says, “The choose ought to have requested the police, do you’ve a replica of the judgment? Did you examine the matter?”

The letter additionally referred to the Supreme Courtroom’s 2004 retrial order of Justices Doraiswamy Raju and Arijit Pasayat within the Greatest Bakery case.

Within the order, the bench had stated, “Whereas the Greatest Bakery and harmless youngsters and helpless girls have been burning, the present-day Nero was trying elsewhere and maybe considering how the culprits of the crime might be saved.”

Nero, the fifth king of the Roman Empire, is remembered as a ruthless king.

Justice Pasayat declined to remark when contacted.

Former Supreme Courtroom choose Justice Madan Lokur on Supreme Courtroom’s feedback on Teesta Setalvad and Sreekumar stated in an interview , “If you find yourself dismissing a case, there isn’t any have to say all this… why to say this? What is required is that we’re dismissing this case and we wish that motion needs to be taken towards you as a result of you’ve introduced a false case.At a time when 1000’s and 1000’s of false circumstances are filed within the courts… Whom the police file? Will the courtroom take motion towards the police for submitting false circumstances?”

In one other article, Justice Lokur stated that if the judges of the Supreme Courtroom didn’t discuss in regards to the arrest of Teesta Setalvad of their order, then they need to order the unconditional launch of Teesta and quash the arrest.

Teesta Setalvad was awarded the Padma Shri in 2007. Teesta, Sreekumar and Sanjeev Bhatt are accused of fabricating proof within the Gujarat riots case.

अहमदाबाद सिविल अस्पताल के बाहर तीस्ता सीतलवाड़
picture caption,Teesta Setalvad exterior Ahmedabad Civil Hospital

Amicus Curie Report Vs SIT Report

Modi supporters have been calling the allegations towards Narendra Modi within the Gujarat riots as a political conspiracy.

On the choice of the Supreme Courtroom, Residence Minister Amit Shah stated, “Everybody is aware of that Teesta Setalvad’s NGO is doing it. The UPA authorities that got here at the moment has helped quite a bit to Teesta Setalvad’s NGO. Lutyens’ Delhi is aware of.”

However within the final 20 years, questions have been raised on the judicial course of, SIT experiences, courtroom proceedings and so on. within the Gujarat riots.

About ten years in the past, the SIT had filed the ultimate report after giving many arguments in about 5 and a half hundred pages.

The final web page of the report learn, “The SIT is of the view that no offense is made out towards Shri Narendra Modi beneath the provisions of the Act.”

Nevertheless, amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran wrote {that a} case was made towards Narendra Modi beneath varied sections of the IPC for spreading enmity between completely different teams.

Actually, the matter pertains to a 2002 assembly in the course of the riots, during which allegations have been raised that Chief Minister Modi had allegedly talked to Hindus to vent their anger.

Former Gujarat ministers Haren Pandya and Sanjeev Bhatt claimed that Narendra Modi stated such a factor. However different officers current there denied that the then Chief Minister had stated something like that.

Amicus Curiae Raju Ramachandran had stated within the report that this matter is in regards to the phrases of Sanjiv Bhatt vs. of different officers and the SIT has listened to the senior officers, and it doesn’t appear {that a} police officer would say such a critical factor with none foundation.

The Supreme Courtroom in its order termed Sreekumar as a “disgruntled officer” and described Narendra Modi’s alleged assertion on the assembly as a “fiction of creativeness”.

Former Residence Secretary GK Pillai says that whether or not you agree with the SIT report or not, in a democracy the place regulation is paramount, the order of the Supreme Courtroom is the final order.

संजीव भट्ट
picture caption,Sanjeev Bhatt

Query and reply with the then Chief Minister

In 2010, when the then Chief Minister Narendra Modi appeared earlier than the SIT workplace in Gandhinagar, it was the primary time that an investigating company had questioned a Chief Minister for his alleged complicity in communal violence.

Journalist and writer Manoj Mitta writes within the guide “Modi and Godhra: The Fiction of Truth Discovering” that the SIT’s investigation lasted 12 months and the statements of 163 witnesses have been taken and all this was finished as a preliminary investigation. Retired CBI officer AK Malhotra was liable for his questioning.

Mitta writes, “He was requested a minimum of 71 questions. Each web page containing his solutions was signed by Modi, and these pages present that Malhotra didn’t fastidiously problem any of the solutions, nevertheless controversial these solutions have been. “

In response to the guide, when Narendra Modi was requested in regards to the assault on Gulberg Society and the motion taken on it, he stated that he got here to know in regards to the assault on Naroda Patiya and Gulbarg Society at a regulation and order assembly at night time.

This bloodbath occurred in the course of the day. Actually, questions have arisen that how the then Chief Minister couldn’t come to find out about these massacres in time in order that any concrete motion might be taken to cease them in time.

In response to Manoj Mitta, the SIT didn’t problem the claims of Narendra Modi and accepted his claims that they didn’t get details about the Gulberg Society bloodbath on the time of the incident.

He writes, “Modi’s declare that he didn’t know something sounds suspicious as a result of a few of his work on February 28 was solely three kilometers from the Gulberg Society.”

In response to web page 261 of the SIT report, Narendra Modi denied that he had acquired a name for assist from Ehsan Jafri in the course of the riots and there was no proof that any such phone dialog happened.

Justice Ok Chandru says, “If the Supreme Courtroom wished to seek out out the reality, they need to have ordered an additional inquiry into the difficulty and mustn’t have passed by the information already gathered.”

गुलमर्ग सोसाइटी

Violence erupted over alleged parade of lifeless our bodies?

It’s alleged that the way during which the our bodies of those that died within the Godhra practice fireplace have been handed over to Jaideep Patel of Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the our bodies have been introduced from Kalupur railway station to the Civil Hospital in Ahmedabad, which spoiled the ambiance .

In response to Manoj Mitta’s guide, when the SIT requested Narendra Modi about bringing the our bodies of these killed within the Godhra practice fireplace to Ahmedabad and Jaideep Patel, he stated that the custody of the our bodies was with the district administration, law enforcement officials and hospital authorities. .

In response to Manoj Mitta, if the SIT had turned to Modi and requested why the doc taking the our bodies was once more signed by the VHP, the reply wouldn’t have been simple.

In response to Mitta, the regulation doesn’t allow the custody of a lifeless particular person’s physique to be given to anybody apart from his guardian or authorized inheritor.

The Supreme Courtroom, in its newest order, stated that the our bodies have been taken in closed automobiles beneath police guard and Jaideep Patel was solely with them.

In response to the order, “There’s nothing to point that the lifeless our bodies have been being paraded from Godhra to Ahmedabad in open automobiles or carried by a gaggle of personal individuals earlier than the final rites. The our bodies needs to be taken to Ahmedabad.” The choice to depart was a acutely aware and unanimous resolution of the native degree officers and was not finished on the orders or instructions of the then Chief Minister as is being alleged.This was finished as a result of a lot of the lifeless individuals have been from Ahmedabad and close by areas. Had been.”

गुलमर्ग सोसाइटी

What occurred to Rahul Sharma and the CD?

In 2004, Gujarat IPS officer Rahul Sharma had submitted two CDs of name information to the Nanavati Fee. The Nanavati Fee was investigating the Gujarat riots.

This information helped in monitoring the actions of ministers, bureaucrats, VIPs, and plenty of others with the assistance of their cellular numbers.

On the premise of those name information, many tales have been printed within the media.

Manoj Mitta says in his guide, “The benefit of this was that the cellphones of the Gujarat riots turned formally frequent in proof. This made it simpler for legal professionals, activists, victims to quote Sharma’s CDs in order that they might be utilized by Maya Kodnani, To pressurize motion towards Jaideep Patel and senior law enforcement officials within the riot case.

In response to Justice Ok Chandru, sure strategies must be adopted whereas presenting digital information.

He says, “In these circumstances when the perpetrators of the crime are in energy, it will likely be tough to current full proof earlier than the courtroom and fulfill it.”

However, the Supreme Courtroom in its judgment stated in regards to the CD, “The SIT has examined the decision information and located that they’re baseless.”





Supply hyperlink