The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed the plea filed by Zakia Jafri, wife of former Congress Member of Parliament Ehsan Jafri, challenging the clean chit given to Prime Minister Narendra Modi by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) in relation to the 2002 Gujarat riots
The judgment was pronounced by a bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar.
“We uphold the decision of magistrate in accepting the SIT report and the decision to reject protest petition. This appeal is devoid of merits and dismissed accordingly,“ the Court held.
The Court had reserved its verdict on December 8, 2021.
Ehshan Jafri was killed in the infamous Gulbarg Society Massacre during the Gujarat riots.
The plea before the top court had challenged the Gujarat High Court’s decision of 2017. The High Court had upheld the decision of the Magistrate to accept the closure report filed by the SIT in the case and had thus dismissed the petition filed by Jafri challenging the report.
In the aftermath of the Gujarat riots, Zakia Jafri had filed a complaint before the then Director General of Police of Gujarat in 2006, seeking registration of a First Information Report (FIR) under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 302 (Punishment for Murder). The complaint was made against various bureaucrats and politicians, including Modi who was then the Chief Minister of Gujarat.
In 2008, the apex court appointed an SIT to submit a report on a number of trials in relation to the riots and subsequently also ordered the SIT to investigate the complaint filed by Jafri.
The SIT report gave a clean chit to Modi and in 2011, the SIT was directed by the Supreme Court to submit its closure report before the concerned Magistrate, and the petitioner was given the liberty to file her objections, if any, to the said report.
In 2013, after the petitioner was handed a copy of the same, she filed a petition opposing the closure report.
The Magistrate upheld the SIT’s closure report and dismissed the petition filed by Jafri. Aggrieved, the petitioner had approached the Gujarat High Court which in 2017, upheld the Magistrate’s decision and dismissed the petition filed by Jafri.
Jafri along with activist Teesta Setalvad then approached the Supreme Court by way of the present petition challenging this decision to accept the SIT’s clean chit.
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal claimed that the SIT did not examine all the material available and that its investigation showed bias. He argued that the State aided in propagating hate.
“The point here is that the dead bodies were flashed on the TV channels in that state, that obviously led to the anger….Material was circulated to push for economic boycott of Muslims. Mutilated pictures of Sabarmati Express, pamphlets of do-it-yourself brutalities were circulated. The material was given to the SIT, they never looked at it,” Sibal stated.
Sibal also said that the SIT itself should be investigated for rendering conclusions contrary to facts.
The SIT did not do ‘investigation’ but did a ‘collaborative exercise’ and its probe was fraught with omissions to protect conspirators.
Sibal said that there was evidence in the form of electronic records including call data records of senior police officials and mobs identifying houses of Muslims, all of which pointed towards conspiracy.
But the SIT ignored all of it and did not conduct any further investigation into the and the Magistrate and High Court too chose to overlook the same, he contended.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi refuted the claims made by Sibal that dead bodies were paraded around.
“All this is there in the report. Doctors were called to the platform. Bodies were moved in convoy including this Patel (VHP leader). Right or wrong, VHP is concerned because their supporters were killed. Can there be parading between 12 and 3 am when people are in their homes? 33 out of 58 dead belonged to Ahmedabad so a decision was taken to bring them to Ahmedabad so the transfer to kith and kin is easy,” he submitted.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the State government claimed that the State did “everything it could.” He had posed questions against the credibility of petitioner number 2 Citizens for Justice and Teesta Setalvad, claiming that she embezzled money donated for the welfare of riot victims. He argued that Setalvad was the force behind Zakia Jafri, taking advantage of her plight to push for action.
(Courtesy: Bar and Bench)
