When did the SIT submit its report? Why did the highest court find the fault of two former Gujarat state officers?
The story so far: The Supreme Court rejected the protest petition filed by Zakia Jafri, widow of the late Congress leader Ehsan Jafri, and challenged the blank slate given to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the then Prime Minister of Gujarat, and 63 other senior officials from the state for their alleged role in the 2002 municipal riots. In its 452-page verdict, the highest court dismissed charges of a “greater conspiracy” in the Gulberg Housing Society case in which Ehsan Jafri was one of the dead. The massacre occurred shortly after the Godhra train tragedy that claimed the lives of 59 kar sevaks on February 27, 2002.
What was the verdict of the apex court?
The three-judge Bench headed by Judge AM Khanwilkar ruled that the passivity of “some officials of part of the state administration” cannot be the basis for inferring a pre-planned criminal conspiracy by the state government, and found no fault in the Special Investigative Team (SIT) report. “There is no material worthy of the name even to suggest the meeting of the minds of all involved on some level; and especially the bureaucrats, politicians, prosecutors or the members of the political establishment of the state – for forging a larger criminal conspiracy at the highest level to cause and accelerate mass violence against the minority community across the state.” the verdict said. The court further affirmed the SIT’s report, stating, “No fault can be found in the SIT’s approach in submitting the final report of 8.2.2012”. It contained “the final report supported by solid logic, uncovering analytical mind and dealing objectively with all aspects”.
“The SIT has not found a single conspiracy linking separate and disparate arson and looting or outrageous allegations of sting operations or individual expressions/publications of alleged hate speech.” The Bench upheld the decision of the additional Metropolitan Magistrate to accept the closure of the SIT – which was itself appointed by the Supreme Court in 2008 – and rejected the protest request filed by Zakia Jafri.
What were the critiques of the Supreme Court?
The court fell heavily on two state officials, Sanjiv Bhatt and RB Sreekumar, and former Gujarat Interior Minister Haren Pandya, stating: “Ultimately, it seems to us that a concerted effort by the disaffected officials of Gujarat state along with others should create a sensation by making disclosures that were untrue to their knowledge. After a thorough investigation, the SIT fully exposed the falsity of their claims.”
The court ruled that the officers were not part of the meeting to decide on the future course of action when the violence broke out on February 27, 2002. Mr. Bhatt recalled he had told the Supreme Court that on the night of February 27, 2002, Mr. Modi asked the police to let the Hindus express their anger. Similarly, in his statement to the Nanavati-Shah Commission, Mr. Sreekumar pointed to a questionable role of the government during the violence.
Such officials should be in the dock for “keeping the pot boiling,” the court said, pointing out: “Intriguingly, the current proceeding has continued for the past 16 years with the audacity to question the integrity of every officer involved in the process of unmasking. Adopted the cunning strategy. All those involved in such abuse of process should be in the dock and operate by the law.”
Incidentally, the SIT led by former CBI director RK Raghavan had submitted a closing report almost ten years ago. In 2012, it gave a clean slate to Mr. Modi and 63 others, finding no prosecutable evidence against them. The Metropolitan Magistrate accepted the report, after which Zakia Jafri went to the Gujarat High Court. In October 2017, the State High Court dismissed her petition. In September 2018, Ms. Jafri knocked on the door of the Supreme Court and filed a protest request against acceptance of the SIT report. In December last year, the apex court upheld its verdict.
What happened in the Gulberg Society?
While tensions were high in Ahmedabad following the Godhra tragedy, about 90 residents had gathered at Ehsan Jafri’s Gulberg residence, hoping for safety with the former parliamentarian from the crowd on the rampage. Mr. Seeing violence, Jafri called on many officers and leaders for help. For lack of practical use, Mr. Jafri had lost hope. The first attack took place around 9:30 am. The police secured support, but soon a mob besieged the Gulberg Society. Gas bottles were thrown into the building from outside, and kerosene cans were thrown off the road. The house was set on fire. Mr. Jafri got out and begged the crowd for the people’s lives there. He was then dragged to the road, mutilated, and then killed. His body was not found. Sixty-nine people were killed, as claimed by residents; officially, 39 casualties were reported.
Furthermore, as an eyewitness recalls in Rakesh Sharma’s National award-winning documentary Final Solution based on the violence in Gujarat: “The police have removed the names of the main culprits of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Bajrang Dal, from the FIR. We were offered money to return the case, not to identify the perpetrators.”
What is the aftermath of the verdict?
Within hours of the Supreme Court ruling, human rights activist Teesta Setalvad, who was allegedly behind Ms. Jafri’s protracted legal battle, was detained by police. Mr. Sreekumar was also arrested. Mr. Bhatt is already in custody. The Supreme Court rejected the protest petition filed by Zakia Jafri, widow of the late Congress leader Ehsan Jafri. It challenged the blank slate given to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the then Prime Minister of Gujarat, and 63 other senior state officials in their alleged roles in the 2002 municipal riots. The court ruled that the inaction of “some officials of a part of the state administration” cannot be the basis for inferring a pre-planned criminal conspiracy by the state government. Within hours of the verdict, human rights activist Teesta Setalvad, who was allegedly behind Ms. Jafri’s protracted legal battle, was detained by police.
