Home » India » Orders reserved on plea to probe Modi’s role in Gulberg case

Orders reserved on plea to probe Modi’s role in Gulberg case

Posted by on July 29, 2011 0 Comment

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved orders on the complaint of Zakia Jaffrey, wife of the slain former Congress MP Ehsan Jaffrey, for a direction to conduct a further probe into the role of Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in the 2002 Gulberg Society massacre in Ahmedabad.

Earlier in May 2010, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by the former CBI Director, R.K. Raghavan, submitted a report on the complaint after examining Mr. Modi and others.

However, as the court felt that Mr. Raghavan’s inferences in the report did not match the SIT findings, it sought the comments of amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran to suggest a future course of action.

During the resumed hearing on Thursday, a Bench of Justices D.K. Jain, P. Sathasivam and Aftab Alam perused the report of the amicus curiae. Though the contents were not divulged, it was understood that the amicus curiae disagreed with certain conclusions in the SIT report, and gave some suggestions.

The Bench told counsel that it would pass orders giving directions indicating the future course of action. When senior counsel Ranjit Kumar, appearing for Gujarat, insisted that a copy of the amicus curiae’s report be supplied as it was an interested party, the Bench refused and said it would pronounce orders later.

Response to Sanjiv Bhatt

Mr. Raghavan also submitted his response to the affidavit filed in the court by senior IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt, who swore that he was present at the February 27, 2002 meeting in the Chief Minister’s house, where, he said, Mr. Modi asked that Hindus be allowed to vent their anger against Muslims.

The Bench kept both reports in sealed covers.

Acting on Zakia’s complaint, which named Mr. Modi and 62 others alleging that they had orchestrated the post-Godhra communal riots in 2002 in connivance with police officials and senior bureaucrats, the SIT conducted a probe and submitted its report to the court in May 2010.

On March 15 this year, the Bench pointed out that Mr. Raghavan’s inferences did not match the SIT findings. The SIT, after conducting a further probe based on the comments of amicus curiae, submitted another report on April 25. It was this report the amicus curiae was asked to evaluate and give his comments.

The thrust of the allegation in the complaint was that there was a conspiracy involving Mr. Modi and other Ministers, senior police officers and officials to commit acts, after the Godhra train fire, which would provoke and fan communal mob violence, and to render the police and security forces inactive, thus aiding and abetting in the commission of crimes of mob violence Hindu

No comments yet... Be the first to leave a reply!

Leave a Reply