By Md. Ali, TwoCircles.net
Human rights group have strongly protested the release of reports in parts by the enquiry commission.The Justice G.T. Nanavati commission submitted the first part of its report on the burning of the S-6 coach of Sabarmati Express to the chief minister Narendera Modi on Thursday September 18, 2008.
In the aftermath of Godhra train bombing and subsequent Hindu-Muslim riots that killed more than a thousand Muslims, a one-man commission headed by the retired Gujarat High Court judge, K. G. Shah was constituted to probe the events that rocked the state in March-April of 2002.
It was only after the objections from many sections, particularly human rights activists that the state government included the retired Supreme Court judge, Justice Nanavati in the Commission as its head. Justice Nanavati had previously investigated the Anti-Sikh violence of 1984.
Later on the scope of investigation of the Commission was extended to include the role of various ministers, police officers and also social and political organizations in the post-Godhra riots which broke out across the state.
Over 1,000 witnesses were examined by the commission and more than 44,000 affidavits were filed during the period of six years.
But there are protests and objections from various quarters to the way that even after six years the Nanavati Commission submitted only the partial report and divided the area of enquiry into two parts. The content of the report is not known but it is believed that only Godhra train fire is considered in the first part.
Reacting to the submission of the partial report by the Nanavati Commission, Mukul Sinha who heads the Jan Sangharsha Manch (JSM) said that now the question which needs to be asked is that why only the partial report of the Godhra carnage has been submitted. He further pointed out that it won’t be in the interests of any of the political parties if the complete truth of the Godhra carnage comes out.
The JSM represents the riot victims before the commission and has been assisting the Commission in its investigation about the incident of burning of S-6 coach of Sabarmati Express at Godhra on 27th February 2002, the wide spread riot all over Gujarat which followed it and the role of the ministers, including the Chief Minister, police officials, social and political organizations during riots.
But since the appointment of Justice Mehta who replaced Justice Shah after his death that it stopped appearing before the Commission as its protest against Justice Mehta’s appointment. The JSM had alleged that Justice Mehta is “too close” to Narendera Modi to expect impartiality from the commission in its reports.
Questioning the urgency of the Commission in submitting, only the partial report even after six years, the JSM termed it as hasty, inappropriate and incomplete. Hasty because it should have waited for the investigation by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) which was constituted by the Supreme Court, to be completed and its report submitted to the apex court, it pointed out. The duration of the SIT has recently been extended till December 2008 by the apex court.
Advocate of JSM Mr. S. H. Iyer of JSM pointed out the High Court is yet to give any decision on the petition which challenged the Banerjee Commission’s report wherein the Nanavati Commission and the state government is also respondent parties.
At the same time many of the documents which the Banerjee Commission relied upon, has been used by the Nanavati Commission, he further informed. To highlight the weak credibility of the state government, he pointed out that the Supreme Court earlier had questioned and in fact rejected the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer Nel Parmar. But it on his investigation on which the State Government has based ward by the before Nanavati Commission is based on Nel Parmer’s investigations, he pointed out.
Incomplete because the report failed to give its view about the post –Godhra riots in which some ministers including the CM, police officers, and various organizations were alleged to be involved.
Mukul Sinha of JSM pointed out that the commission has only three reference points before it, the burning of the S-6 of Sabarmati Express, the riot which followed it and the role of the ministers, police officers, social and political organizations in the riots and the Commission submitted its report on only one reference.
Moreover JSM also expressed apprehensions over the bifurcation of the complete enquiry in to two as it will send wrong message to the riot victims.
Moreover the Gujarat High Court on September 23, 2008 dismissed a PIL, which sought the court to stop the Nanavati commission report from being tabled in the forthcoming three day session of Gujarat assembly from Thursday.
The PIL was filed by the Citizens for Justice and Peace and the Peoples Union for Civil Liberties. Petitioner advocate M. M. Tirmizi argued before the court that the very order by the Supreme Court for a re-trial of the Best Bakery and Bilkis Bano cases outside the state questions the prejudicial role of the state. On the top of that the affidavits filed by R. B. Sreekumar, the former ADGP about the complicity of the state in the Gujarat riots is a case in point.
He further contended that the Commission was constituted to investigate into the Godhra and post Godhra incidents in their completeness. Hence it can’t be bifurcated as it would amount to the bifurcation of the term of reference itself under which the Commission was constituted. So it is only after the completion of the full enquiry that the full report can be tabled in the Assembly.
But the division bench comprising Chief Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan and Justice M.S. Shah observed that there is no instruction or rule in the Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act which says that the Nanavati Commission can’t release a part of the report.
Moreover the Bench also pointed out the Act doesn’t have any instruction regarding the presentation of a part of a report filed in the state assembly.