On June 24, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, led by Justice A. M. Khanwilkar, dismissed a petition filed by Zakia Jafri, the widow of slain Congress leader Ehsan Jafri, challenging the SIT's closure report, which stated that there were no grounds to prosecute then-Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi and 63 other officials for their alleged role in the 2002 Gujarat riots.
The court, in its 452-page ruling, criticized Jafri's co-petitioner, activist Teesta Setalvad, and previous state officials, including jailed IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt, former Gujarat DGP RB Sreekumar, and former Home Minister Haren Pandya - without identifying any of them.
The bench stated that “All those involved in such abuse of process, need to be in the dock and proceeded with in accordance with law.”
In the Best Bakery riot case in 2004, the Supreme Court accused the Gujarat government of 'abuse of process,' the same charge now levelled against Setalvad and Jafri, but stopped short of suggesting any punitive measures: “At the least, the aforesaid aspects lead to the inevitable conclusion that the application is thoroughly misconceived, a sheer abuse of process of law, and deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs. However, we refrain from imposing any costs,” stated the bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and Doraiswamy Raju in their decision.
Meanwhile, Anand Yagnik, a senior lawyer practicing in the Gujarat high court said, “When a court, particularly a constitutional court, makes observations, [the police] do not need prima facie evidence to arrest them. These observations themselves constitute a foundation to arrest them. That is why before making these observations, the Supreme Court should have reopened the matter, issued proper notice, given the petitioner the reference that these are the issues we intend to take up right now. This is leaving aside the question of prima facie evidence in order to register a complaint against Narendra Modi.”
The court noted that because it had allowed those trials to continue in which criminal conspiracy charges had previously been brought, what remained to be investigated were only allegations of greater conspiracy at the highest level. In this regard, the SIT's final report and the Magistrate's order have to be considered.
The court also noted that failure to obtain/collect intelligence or inaction to bring these to a logical conclusion could not be regarded as an act of criminal conspiracy, and the SIT itself had noted that such inaction was to and had already been noted by initiating departmental action against them at the appropriate levels.
Furthermore, the breakdown of law and order as a result of spontaneous mass violence cannot be said to be part of a larger criminal conspiracy at the highest level of political dispensation unless there is clear evidence to conclude that there was a meeting of minds and concerted efforts to commit or promote the commission of such crime.
As a result, when there was no such material, the relevant court could not take cognizance or direct further investigation. It would not be open to assume conspiracy in the air if documents obtained during the investigation did not relate any meeting of minds, cases investigated by the SIT, or other incidences described in the complaint or protest petition.
Picture Source :
