The Narendra Modi government in Gujarat took a timely decision to call the Army on the day riots broke out on February 28, 2002 and, on the same day, deployment commenced, said the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) on Wednesday.
Defending the clean chit given to then Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi and 63 others in the larger conspiracy probe undertaken by the SIT on a complaint by Zakia Ehsan Jafri, whose husband former Congress MP Eshan Jafri died during the riots, the SIT told the Court that the presence of state Ministers in the police control room on the day of riots was to possibly boost the morale of the police.
It further argued that calling SIT partisan was unfair as its investigation into the nine riot cases led to arrest and conviction of a sitting state minister Maya Kodnani and addition of several other accused whose role was not examined by the Gujarat Police.
After SIT was entrusted by the top court in 2011 to examine Jafri’s complaint, it filed a closure report on February 8, 2012 finding no substance in the larger conspiracy angle. The magistrate dismissed Jafri’s petition challenging the SIT report ; the Gujarat high court too in October 2017 refused to admit her appeal. The appeal against this order is presently being heard by a three-judge bench of the top court headed by justice AM Khanwilkar.
Opening arguments for SIT, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi said, “A large part of the complaint is general and not worthy of investigation. But the SIT culled out 30 allegations and investigated every aspect, examining 275 witnesses. Much time was spent on it since it was the mandate from the highest court.” He further stated that the SIT was not to probe “everything under the sun” as its remit was limited to finding out additional material on which other accused could be charge sheeted.
{{/usCountry}}Opening arguments for SIT, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi said, “A large part of the complaint is general and not worthy of investigation. But the SIT culled out 30 allegations and investigated every aspect, examining 275 witnesses. Much time was spent on it since it was the mandate from the highest court.” He further stated that the SIT was not to probe “everything under the sun” as its remit was limited to finding out additional material on which other accused could be charge sheeted.
{{/usCountry}}Dismissing every allegation of inaction leveled against it by Jafri’s lawyer senior advocate Kapil SIbal, the SIT began by denying parading of dead bodies of Godhra train burning incident of February 27, 2002 (this was alleged by the petitioner to be the trigger point that sparked riots). “There was no question of parading the bodies. It was a serious issue that could add fuel to the fire. We examined all persons and found no substance as bodies moved under police escort,” Rohatgi said.
On the role of the state officials, Rohatgi said, “A decision was taken by the Chief Minister to call the Army on February 28. It is a false allegation that army was called in late. The fax was sent at 2 pm and the army was redeployed in the night itself. The PM had to give his approval to move the army because of the tension after the Parliament attack (in December 2001). But there was no delay.” He added that the last unit of the Army landed on March 1.
Sibal relied upon a statement by Lt. Gen. Zameer Uddin Shah who wrote a book in 2018 alleging that the army’s deployment was delayed due to lack of transportation by the state leading to so many deaths. Rohatgi said, “A public notice was issued in April 2008 asking members of public to come forward and depose before SIT. What stopped him from coming to SIT? His statement is irrelevant as there is no purpose of writing a book in 2018.”
On the Tehelka sting tapes (recordings made during a sting operation by magazine Tehelka) , used as evidence to prosecute accused in some of the riots cases, Rohatgi said, “There is no dispute about its genuineness of the tapes. But the statements inspire no confidence. SIT found no substance to lodge charge sheet but we still gave it to the trial court in three riots cases. One particular court rejected the material produced in the sting tapes.”
Rohatgi explained to the Court that the remit of SIT was of limited scope. “My remit under SC order was to see whether there is material against people who are not already accused and whether charge sheet must be filed against other accused. I am not a super-police station that I will investigate everything under the sun.”
SIT also alleged that the copy of Jafri’s original complaint produced before Supreme Court was “doctored” and Rohatgi showed discrepancies with the complaint SIT received in 2011. He pointed out that the complaint copiously relied on statements made by two police officials during the riots – Sanjiv Bhat and RB Sreekumar, but not a word of it was argued in the present proceedings. Bhat was sacked from the police force and Sreekumar turned against the state government after he was superseded in 2005, he argued.
Rohatgi said, “We left no stone unturned because SC had asked us to investigate. Somebody may agree or disagree with us but it is very unfair to say SIT did not do its job.”
Rohatgi will continue with arguments on Thursday.