In Supreme Court, the process of hearings has begun on the appeal filed by Zakia Jafri, wife of the Congress leader Ehsan Jafri, who was brutally murdered during the Gujarat riots. The appeal jointly filed by Zakia Jafri and the ‘Citizens For Justice and Peace’ challenges the report of the Supreme court-appointed SIT which probed the Gujarat riots of 2002 and gave clean chit in 2012 to 64 accused persons including Narendra Modi, the then Chief Minister of Gujarat. Prior to approaching the Supreme Court in 2018, the appellants had at first lodged a protest petition (in 2013) against the closure report of the SIT with the Magistrate Court as the latter had accepted it. When the protest was not looked into, the appellants in October 2017 had knocked on the doors of Gujarat High Court which upheld the decision of the lower court. In the appeal before the Supreme Court, the appellants while challenging the closure report of the SIT, have questioned the rationale for the clean chit given to the accused. During the hearing last week, the Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, and C.T. Ravikumar has said that it will peruse the closure report of the SIT, and the hearing will resume on November 10, 2021.
Appearing for the appellants, Kabil Sibal, a senior advocate of high repute, has raised several questions about the findings of the SIT, its closure report as well as the lackadaisical approach in conducting the investigations. Mr.Sibal has alleged that the SIT after collecting a plethora of facts and evidence about the modus operandi of the riots; the factors, and circumstances leading to it; and the role of many politicians, bureaucrats, police officials, etc, has failed to uncloak the entire gamut of affairs pertaining to riots and carnage incidents in the entire state. It rather limited its findings and report to the Gulberg Society violence in which the husband of the appellant was massacred. Explaining the locus standi for the appeal, Mr. Sibal told the Bench, “our case is, there was a larger conspiracy at play—there was bureaucratic inaction, police complicity, hate speech and a conspired unleashing of violence”. Referring to Section 190 of Cr.P.C, Mr.Sibal reminded the apex court that when certain facts and information constituting commission of an offence are apprised, the court is bound to take cognizance of them but in the instant lawsuit, he said, the Magistrate and the Session courts did not look into the facts and information brought to their notice by the
complaint of Zakia Jafri, which was not relating to Gulberg alone. He asked the apex court when such is the situation where one has to go?And which court should be approached for remedy in law?
Placing before the Supreme Court, the timeline of riot incidents, and the subsequent investigations by law enforcement authorities and the SIT, Mr. Sibal has challenged the credibility of the closure report. He has requested the apex court to ascertain answers to a bunch of questions for proper consideration of the lawsuit. Mr. Sibal has asked the reasons for the SIT to ignore the evidences collected on record and the findings of a sting operation by a journalist Ashish Khetan, all of which together reveal to a large extent the conspiracies behind the riots. On what basis the SIT restricted its scope to the Gulberg Society massacre
alone when evidences collected by it relates to the whole state of Gujarat? Why the SIT had not inquired into the presence of two ministers in the police control room when the massacre of victims was underway? What and who prevented the fire brigade from responding to calls when the city was on fire?
Why were the dead bodies of the Godhra train carnage handed over to Jaydeep Patel, a VHP member, in blatant violation of all the established rules of procedure? Who arranged the crowd in Ahmedabad before the dead bodies reached there? How did the public come to know that the dead bodies were brought there? Why curfew was not imposed in Ahmedabad when a crowd of about three thousand people had gathered shouting slogans against a particular community? Why the confirmations of Babu Bajrangi on the role of police and accused persons revealed in the sting operations have not been looked into to fix the culpability? With all such questions along with many other issues, Mr. Sibal has endeavoured to show the apex court that the SIT investigations and the closure report need to be relooked.
The appeal before the Supreme Court is not an ordinary lawsuit since it is challenging the report of the investigation team appointed by the apex court itself. The eyes of the whole world and the Indians are focused on the apex court as many of the accused in the suit are persons holding powerful positions. Everyone is waiting to see how the apex court will handle the instant lawsuit and uphold human rights.The advocate representing the appellants has informed the court that there is nothing political in the case and he is not concerned with the high dignitaries but the matter in issue is the rights of the individuals. Expectations from the highest court of justice are quite high to see a fair and impartial consideration on the plea of the appellants. After all, in the words of Mr.Sibal,“ A Republic stands or falls depending on what the court decides. We cannot trust anyone but the judiciary and the courts”.
The Supreme Court as a guardian of human rights; protector of the Constitution; and promoter of peace, harmony, and cordiality, is required in the matter to ascertain not just the justifications of the SIT for not considering the facts and evidences other than relating to the Gulberg Society violence but has to look into the micro details that are responsible for the unleashing of the unprecedented carnage in the post-independent India. It must adopt a stringent stand to objectively and fairly determine the culpability of all the persons involved in the riots and the ‘reign of terror’ regardless of the political, social, economic, religious or official positions they hold. The appellants as the court was given to understand are looking presently not conviction of the culprits but investigations. Further, the Supreme Court must prevail upon the union and state governments to bring in strong legislation to maintain communal harmony and prevent the occurrence of riots in the country. Alongside, the apex court must make efforts to study the factors that generally make any investigation team or commission on any law and order issue, produce reports which by and large do not strongly fix the culpability but maintain neutrality. It is high time that the apex court formulates strong principles of judicial accountability. Such principles would ensure that justice is not compromised under the influence of any factor, and the transparency it brings in the judicial system would negate the famous adage of Halifax that ‘if laws could speak for themselves, they would complain of lawyers in the first place.’
