Zakia Jafri. Photo: PTI/Files
New Delhi: Appearing before
the Supreme Court, Zakia Jafri’s lawyer Kapil Sibal has been arguing
that the special investigation team’s closure report into whether
certain prominent persons can be held responsible for the 2002 communal
violence in Gujarat was not justified. Zakia’s husband and Congress MP
Ehsan Jafri was one of 68 people killed during the Gulberg Society
massacre on February 28, 2002.
On February 8, 2012, the SIT filed a closure report giving a clean
chit to then Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi and 63 others,
including senior government officials, saying there was “no prosecutable
evidence” against them. Both a magistrate’s court and the Gujarat high
court had later upheld the SIT’s report.
Zakia’s case is not the same as the Gulberg Society case – while the
latter deals only with the massacre that took place at Gulberg Society,
Zakia’s case is an pin criminal and administrative liability and
accountability in approximately 300 incidents over 19 districts of
Gujarat in 2002.
The other petitioner in the case is Citizens for Justice and Peace, a human rights group led by activist Teesta Setalvad.
While hearing the case on
Tuesday and Wednesday, the Supreme Court bench of Justices A.M.
Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and C.T. Ravikumar said it would like to
go through the closure report, as well as the magistrate’s reasoning
while accepting it.
The closure report, Sibal has argued in court over the last three
days, does not mention several facts that the SIT had been made aware
of. On June 8, 2006, he said, the petitioners had submitted a detailed
complaint to the then DGP, P.C. Pande. In over 100 pages, the complaint
detailed the ‘conspiracy’ they thought was at play after the Godhra
train burning on February 27, 2002. They had also affixed evidence
gathered from previous SIT probes along with the complaint.
Also read: The Daughter of Ehsan and Zakiya Jafri Writes: My Mother, My Motherland
The magistrate’s court and high court, Sibal argued, did not take
account of the state’s responsibility in the matter. “The duty of the
court…that’s the central question the lordships will have to decide…once
the Magistrate receives information which according to us constitutes
an offence, the Magistrate is duty bound to not only look at the
information but also take cognisance of the offence.”
All the evidence submitted to the SIT merited a thorough probe, Sibal
argued, yet a closure report was filed without proper investigation.
All we want is that our matter is looked at…if you don’t investigate,
just file a closure report, where do we go? …This Republic is too great
to deny a person justice.”
All the material provided came from official sources such as records
of the state intelligence bureau, the police exchanges and control rooms
(PCR) documents, etc., Sibal argued. The magistrate, however, refused
to look into the matter of the larger conspiracy. “My lords, our case
was that there was a larger conspiracy at play, where there was
bureaucratic inaction, police complicity, hate speech and a conspired
directed unleashing of violence. The Magistrate said I won’t look at it
because the supreme court prevents me from doing that and only look at
the Gulberg society case.” Sibal argued before the Supreme Court bench.
The petitioners have argued that several facts that are widely known
point to the fact that there was a larger political conspiracy at play
that both encouraged and allowed the communal violence to take place.
“… the prelude and build-up of a volatile atmosphere prior to February
27, 2002, the post mortems being conducted in the wide open in
violation of statutory provisions, no preventive arrests and delayed
implementation of curfew in Ahmedabad despite widespread violence from
February 27, 2002 onwards, among other issues,” prove this, the CJP has said.
Sibal also argued
on Thursday that a private person, Jaydeep Patel, was handed the bodies
of those killed in Godhra. “Question is, contrary to all rules of
procedure, how was a dead body given to this individual through an
official communication?” said Sibal, adding it calls for serious
investigation.
“By the time these bodies reached Ahmedabad the crowd had gathered.
Who made phone calls? How did anyone know that Patel was taking dead
bodies? I don’t know, but these have to be investigated. But SIT saying a
departmental enquiry is not enough,” he submitted.
Responding
to the petition, the SIT has claimed before the court that it completed
a probe before filing the closure report. “We will show you that we
have faithfully investigated everything,” said senior advocate Mukul
Rohatgi, appearing for the SIT.
The hearing will continue on November 10.
source ; the wire
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments