E-Paper
2002 riots case of larger conspiracy, not limited to one person, SC told
The submission was made by senior advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for the two petitioners , Zakia Ahsan Jafri, the widow of former Congress MP Ashan Jafri, and activist Teesta Setalvad.
The petitioners seeking an investigation into the larger conspiracy behind the Gujarat riots told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that they do not wish to contest the closure report against the then chief minister Narendra Modi submitted by the special investigation team (SIT) as there is no “undisputed” material to show that the larger conspiracy emanated from the meeting called by the CM on February 27, 2002.
The submission was made by senior advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for the two petitioners , Zakia Ahsan Jafri, the widow of former Congress MP Ashan Jafri, and activist Teesta Setalvad. Reading out a statement prepared by the petitioners, Sibal said, “Our case is of larger conspiracy, not emanating from the February 27, 2002 meeting alone, but involving other persons such as bureaucrats, politicians, public prosecutors, police, VHP, Bajrang Dal and state functionaries, that is based on undisputed documents and facts that should have been investigated by SIT.”
Sibal said, “My allegation of conspiracy is not limited to a person, but if the SIT would have investigated the Tehelka tapes and other material that we provided, you could have found out the larger conspiracy.” He said that a statement clarifying this aspect would be filed and should be taken on record.
The statement said: “ SIT did not investigate the larger conspiracy, but limited itself to matters in dispute relating to a meeting of February 27, 2002. Qua that meeting, SIT has come to a certain conclusion which is part of the closure report. Since the petitioner has not made any submissions on disputed facts, the petitioner did not contend before this Court that a larger conspiracy emanated from the meeting of February 27, 2002 alone. In fact, during the course of submissions, no reference was made by the petitioner to this meeting at all.”
During the hearing earlier in the day, the Court wished to know if the petitioners wished to press the allegations against the then chief minister who was named by Jafri in her June 2006 complaint as one out of 63 persons who needed to be probed for their involvement in failing to prevent the riots.
The bench of justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar said, “It was your allegation that at the highest level, the first person (in the state) was also involved….The SIT produced contemporaneous material to show there is no basis in the allegation that instructions came from the top. Charge sheet cannot be filed against persons without any material. If you have something more, tell us.”
Sibal said that the allegation in the complaint was based on the statement made by suspended IPS officer Sanjiv Bhat who claimed to be present in the February 27 meeting. Later, it was revealed by SIT that he was not present at the meeting. “On day one I said that Bhat was not present. There was no other way to confirm the indication that a direction was issued by the chief minister. We have accepted that. At no stage did I try to implicate the ex-CM and I have not argued that even. The Court may accept the closure report to that extent. I have nothing to say on that.”
The bench said, “The SIT has dealt with the larger conspiracy. The purpose of their investigation is to collate material, form an opinion and submit the report to the court. Now, according to you, conspiracy remains at the local level.”
Sibal said, “A larger conspiracy involving individuals whose undisputed extra-judicial confessions are on tape, read along with inactions of officials demonstrated by undisputed documents, should have been investigated by the SIT….The extent of the conspiracy, the identity and number of individuals involved, the preparatory acts committed and the time, place and manner in which the meeting of minds for purposes of such conspiracy took place can only fully emerge on investigation.”
He then showed the Court those portions in the Tehelka tapes and official documents which he claimed SIT failed to investigate. He also defended Setalvad on the allegations made by SIT that she tutored witnesses. “She has worked with NHRC, filed applications and even appeared before this court all along. SIT took no objection then and now her reputation is besmirched,” he said.
“Victims in this country are not in a position to challenge the power of the state which is a monolith. It is difficult for them to challenge the mighty state. So, there are persons like the NHRC, citizens tribunal and Setalvad who help organize the victims,” Sibal added.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for SIT told the Court that he required some time to reply to the petitioners’ submission. The court posted the matter for Thursday.
