In what may spell trouble for Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi and some top state officials, a confidential report by a Supreme Court-appointed lawyer has found no “clinching evidence” to dispute the presence of suspended Gujarat Police officer Sanjiv Bhatt at a meeting called by Modi on the night of February 27, 2002.
The report has recently been submitted to the Special Investigation Team by Supreme Court-appointed amicus curiae (friend of the court) Raju Ramachandran, in a Gujarat riots case.
Bhatt had in an affidavit in the Supreme Court in April stated that he was present at the meeting that night and witnessed Modi telling the police to be indifferent to rioters attacking Muslims during the mayhem that followed the Godhra train burning carnage.
The state government had rejected Bhatt’s statement, saying he was not present at Modi’s residence on that occasion. Ramachandran is understood to have stated in his report that the fate of the case against all those, including Modi, can be decided only after all witnesses, including Bhatt, are cross-examined.
Zakia is the widow of former Congress MP Ehsaan Jafri, who was burnt alive with 68 others at the Gulberg Housing Society in Ahmedabad a day after the meeting at Modi’s residence.
Ramchandran’s report says Bhatt and all other officers present at the controversial meeting should be cross-examined by the trial court.
If the court accepts Bhatt’s version of what Modi said at the meeting, all those named in Zakia Jafri’s complaint, including the CM, may have to face trial for criminal offences.
Bhatt was a senior officer with the state police’s intelligence wing and as the intelligence chief did not attend the meeting, his statement draws credibility from the fact that such an important meeting could not have taken place without keeping this wing out, the report is learnt to have observed.
Ramachandran is also learnt to have rejected the state government’s argument that Bhatt has levelled wild allegations against Modi and other senior officials because he is a disgruntled officer.
On why Bhatt chose to speak out nine years after the riots, the amicus curiae is understood to have accepted his view that being a serving officer, he could have spoken out either before a commission or an inquiry.
Ramachandran declined to comment on his findings. “I neither confirm nor deny your information,” he told HT. Gujarat government spokesperson Jai Narayan Vyas too refused to comment on the findings.
Nagendar Sharma and Mahesh Langa
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Views 1581 Report
Former CBI joint director R.M. Singh , who was then in-charge of probe in death of Ruchika Girhotra, 14, had recommended bringing molestation charges, the charge of abetment to suicide, forging of document in his report and alleged that Rathore had made attempts to bribe him to influence his recommendations. Singh claimed the courts were willing to accept the charge of abetment to suicide but the CBI didn’t use the opportunity Dr. R.K. Raghvan, then Director of CBI harboured S.P.S. Rathore by not including this charge of abetment to suicide. “Whatever the CBI could not do or did not do and the courts were trying to do it the CBI opposed it. The CBI should have grabbed this opportunity in saying that they don't have any objection and if the court feels satisfied that the case should be tried under abetment to suicide.” Former CBI director RK Raghavan refused to comment on the allegations. “No question of allegations. I can't comment on something that happened 10 years ago. I don't know,” he told CNN-IBN.