By TCN Special Correspondent,
Ahmedabad: In a severe setback to Chief Minister Narendra Modi, Supreme Court- appointed amicus curiae has said that there is enough evidence to prosecute Modi for promoting enmity among different sections of the society during 2002 communal riots. This is in direct contrast to the report of Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by former CBI director R K Raghavan. Raghavan had given a clean chit to Modi regarding his involvement in the riots.
SIT had investigated a complaint by Zakia Jafri, widow of former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri killed along with 69 others in Gulberg Society during 2002 riots. Zakia had alleged the role of 62 persons, including Modi, several of his ministers, senior civil and police bureaucrats, in an
“overarching conspiracy’’ in the statewide riots.
The Supreme Court had asked the amicus curiae Raju Ramchandran to submit his notes on SIT report after talking to some of the major witnesses after Zakia and Teesta Setalvad of Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) expressed apprehensions that SIT was biased in its investigations.
Ramchandran went through SIT report and also talked to several of the witnesses including former director general of police R B Sreekumar and suspended IPS official Sanjeev Bhatt. Bhatt in an affidavit to the Supreme Court had alleged that Modi had allowed the majority community
to vent out their anger against the Muslims after burning of two coaches of Sabarmati Express at Godhra resulting into the killing of 59 Hindu passengers on February 27, 2002.
SIT submitted its report as also that of amicus curiae to a court in Ahmedabad about two months ago, but a copy of it was made available to Zakia only on Monday (May 7).
The amicus curiae report says that there are a number of circumstances that indicate that Modi’s role requires a detailed investigation.
The report says: “There are a number of circumstances which prima facie indicate that the matter requires detailed investigation to examine the role of Modi immediately after the Godhra incident to find out if there is any culpability to the extent that a message was conveyed that the state machinery would not step in to prevent the communal riots’’.
The report says that nearly nine years have passed since the incident, SIT report has left a number of questions unanswered.
It has also criticized SIT for not looking into certain evidences provided by Teesta Setalvad.
The report has also pointed out that there was nothing in the SIT report to indicate that Modi had taken any step to prevent the riots.
While SIT stated in its report that Modi’s television interview on March 1, 2002, would not be sufficient enough to make out a case against Modi, Ramchandran report says that “there was an attempt in the interview to justify the violence against the minority community. This indicates a certain approach. The statement made by Modi cannot be seen in isolation. It has to be seen in conjunction with other facts which provide sufficient justification for a detailed investigation in the matter’’.
While SIT report says that suspended IPS officer Sanjeev Bhatt was not present at February 27, 2002 meeting at CM’s residence, Ramchandran observes that it may not be correct to rule out the presence of Bhatt at the meeting.
Ramchandra also says that “there is no reason for him (Bhatt) to make wrong statement’’. This is pertaining to Bhatt’s affidavit in the Supreme Court, accusing Modi of asking police officers to allow the mobs to vent out their anger against Muslims.
Ramchandran report also states that it is hard to believe that slain Home Minister Haren Pandya was not present at February 27, 2002 meeting. His statement in front of Justice(retd) P.B. Sawant and Justice (retd) H. Suresh of Citizen’s Tribunal can be used.
The amicus curiae report has also nailed the fact that the CM’s office was not comfortable with Pandya’s statement. An inquiry was made from CM’s office as to the identity the Minister who had deposed before the Citizen’s Tribunal and that the State Intelligence Bureau had
verified the identity as that of Haren Pandya.
While SIT report describes R B Sreekumar’s statement as merely “hearsay’’, Ramchandran report says: “the statement of R B Sreekumar cannot be discarded as hearsay, in the light of Section 6 of the Evidence Act’’.
Ramchandran report also points out that VHP general secretary Jaideep Patel could not have been given the bodies of train passengers unless there was orders to this effect from a very high person in the government. SIT report has not taken note of this fact but Ramchandran report says this needs to be investigated as both Modi and Jaypdeep Patel were present in Godhra on February 27, 2002.
The report is also critical of the role of the then cabinet ministers I.K. Jadeja and Ashok Bhatt.
“The positioning of two ministers having nothing to do with the home portfolio in the office of DGP and the State Police Control Room, respectively, is another circumstance which reflects that there was a direct instruction from the Chief Minister……. It is obvious that the Chief Minister had positioned these two Ministers in highly sensitive places which should not have been done. In fact, these two ministers could have taken active steps to defuse the riots, but they did nothing, which speaks volumes about the decision to let the riots happen. It does not appear that these two ministers immediately called the CM and told him about the situation at Gulberg and other places”, the report says.
Ramchandran’s report calls for a case of criminal negligence against police officials M.K. Tandon and P.B. Gondia, in-charge of Gulberg Society and Naroda Patia areas where mass massacres took place. They had received calls from BJP MLA Mayaben Kodnani and Jaydeep Patel who are facing trial in Naroda Patia massacre.