New Delhi: There was a “stark story of collaboration” between the political class, bureaucracy, investigators and accused during the 2002 Gujarat riots and the Special Investigation Team did not investigate these aspects, Zakia Jafri told the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
Jafri, the wife of Congress leader Ehsan Jafri who was killed at Gulberg society in Ahmedabad on February 28, 2002 during the violence, has challenged the SIT’s clean chit to 64 people including Narendra Modi, who was Gujarat chief minister during the riots.
‘Collaboration’
According to LiveLaw, Sibal referred to the documents submitted by him and noted:
“There was glaring evidence of collaboration. The bureaucracy became collaborators. Not all but the key people became collaborators. The political class became collaborators. The VHP, The Bajrang Dal, the RSS became collaborators. This is the stark story of collaboration with the accused.”
The apex court asked Jafri’s counsel Kapil Sibal as to whether he was attributing motives to the SIT and said the term “collaboration” is a very strong one for an SIT constituted by the top court, leading Sibal to note that that was indeed his argument but not in the sense that the Supreme Court had perceived.
A bench headed by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and C.T. Ravikumar said:
“The collaboration with the local police at ground level we understand and would look into it. How can you complain about SIT appointed by the Court?…This argument if we start entertaining it is a reflection on the SIT appointed by the Court itself. Is that your argument?”
Sibal then said, “Yes, I am deeply sorry milords, but that is going to be my argument.”
Also read: Gujarat Riots: SIT Made No Sincere Attempts To Nab Culprits, Says Kapil Sibal in Zakia Jafri’s Plea
The bench sought to remind Sibal that the same SIT had “filed charge sheets” in other riots cases and there were no grievances on them. It then said, “Collaboration is a strong term for an SIT appointed by the Court. Attributing motives to the SIT appointed by Court…”
Sibal then highlighted that he was not alleging that the SIT was responsible in collaborating with accused but that the SIT did not sufficiently look into the extent of the collaboration.
He said officers who did their duty were prosecuted and those who “collaborated” were rewarded.
“SIT had knowledge of Tehelka tapes. They knew about the judgment of Gujarat HC that authenticated the tapes. That is a question that anyone would ask. Why was the defence accepted by the SIT? What does it show – was SIT collaborating and saving some people? Why ? I don’t know.”
The bench then told Sibal that attributing motives to the SIT would “be going too far.”
“Error of judgment will be explained by SIT, then only you can pitch it to that extent,” the bench said.
Sibal then said that he would “pitch it lower”, noting that, “The officials who had ex facie committed offence were not prosecuted by the SIT” and that no explanations for these omissions was given.
The bench speculated that maybe Sibal has “missed it in the record of the cases.”
Sibal also highlighted that no person has been sought to be prosecuted for hate speeches at that time.
“What becomes the ultimate victim in this case is the justice,” he said, adding, “This is the failure of the system”.
In day-long arguments in the matter, Sibal also sought to highlight how the confidential report of the NHRC did not see the “light of day” and questioned why the SIT did not examine them.
The hearing will continue on Wednesday.
Clean chit
Sibal had earlier argued that Zakia Jafri’s complaint of 2006 alleging larger conspiracy in the riots was not investigated by the SIT.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the SIT, had earlier told the apex court that Jafri’s complaint was thoroughly examined after which the SIT came to the conclusion that there was no material to take it forward.
Ehsan Jafri, a former MP, was among the 68 people killed in the violence, a day after the Godhra train incident.
On February 8, 2012, the SIT had filed a closure report giving a clean chit to Modi, now the Prime Minister, and 63 others including senior government officials, saying there was “no prosecutable evidence” against them.
Also read: Gujarat Violence: Why Zakia Jafri Wants the SC to Look Into SIT’s Clean Chit to Modi, Others
Jafri had filed a petition in the apex court in 2018 challenging the Gujarat high court’s October 5, 2017 order rejecting her plea against the SIT decision.
The plea also maintained that after the SIT gave a clean chit in its closure report before a trial judge, Zakia Jafri filed a protest petition which was dismissed by the magistrate without considering “substantiated merits”.
It also said the high court “failed to appreciate” the petitioner’s complaint which was independent of the Gulberg Society case registered at a police station in Ahmedabad.
The high court in its October 2017 order had highlighted that the SIT probe was monitored by the Supreme Court. However, it partly allowed Jafri’s petition as far as its demand for a further investigation was concerned.
It had said the petitioner can approach an appropriate forum, including the magistrate’s court, a division bench of the high court, or the Supreme Court seeking further investigation.
(With PTI inputs)