08, May 2017

September

5, 2013
Press Release

SIT is misleading Magistrate’s Court, Zakia
Jafri files application

Advocate for
Complainant Smt Zakia Jafri assisted by Citizens for Justice and
Peace (CJP), Yusuf Shaikh, today filed an application before
Magistrate Judge Ganatra pointing out that a biased SIT was
deliberately distorting Orders of higher Courts and actually
committing Contempt of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. They urged the
Magistrate to ensure that the SIT put down their spurious arguments
in writing. Annexed to the application were several relevant Orders
of the Supreme Court also supplied to the Court before.

The Text of the Application argued today is below :-

SUB : OBJECTIONS OF THE COMPLAINANT TO THE LINE OF ARGUMENTS BEING
MADE BY THE SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM (SIT)

By repeatedly bringing up an Order of the High Court of November
2007, that was overturned by the HonÂ’ble Supreme Court, when it
first issued Notice to the Gujarat on 3-3-2008, directed SIT to
“look into” the Complaint dated 8.6.2006 first on 27-4-2004 and then
through repeated orders directed Investigations through 2010 and
2011, expressly directing Further Investigations on 15.3.2011
–including directing the Amicus Curaie Raju Ramachandran to meet
senior police officer witnesses bypassing SIT and seeing whether an
offence has been made out (5.5.2011)—the SIT has been, and is,
repeatedly committing contempt of the HonÂ’ble Supreme Court.

The SIT is deliberately not reading from the 12.9.2011 Order of the
SC, and bypassing that Order, that differed with the Findings of the
Gujarat High Court and remanded the Complaint to a MagistrateÂ’s
Court, and explicitly preserved the Complainant Smt JafriÂ’s right to
file a Protest Petition after accessing all the Investigation
Papers.

This HonÂ’ble Court is being misled and contempt of the SC is being
committed by the SIT. These aspects of the SIT need to be recorded
in writing. The Complainant is placing her strong objections to this
stratagem of the SIT and prays that the Ld Magistrate record these
spurious and misleading arguments by the SIT.

Even after proceedings in the Ld Court began, the SIT instead of
functioning like an Independent Investigating agency has been doing
the job of shielding the powerful accused and has strongly resisted
supplying Investigation Papers to the Complainant expressly
violating Paras 8 and 9 of the HonÂ’ble Supreme Court Order dated
12.9.2011.The SIT cited ‘confidentiality’ of its Reports filed
before the HonÂ’ble Supreme Court as being the prime reason for
withholding them. The Complainant had then argued that when the
Reports of the Amicus Curiae dated 20.1.2011 and 25.7.2011, also in
the first instance supplied in the ‘sealed cover’ to the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, were thereafter, directed to be handed over to the
Complainant by the HonÂ’ble Supreme Court itself, how could
Investigation Reports be treated as confidential?

Since 9.2.2012, the Complainant through her advocates, has
rigorously argued this point, citing Paras 8 and 9 of the Final
Orders of the SC dated 12.9.2012 (attached yet again). Lengthy
arguments, including in writing were given to the Court on
15.3.2012. Finally on 10.4.2012 Judge Bhatt granted the
ComplainantÂ’s prayers and 65 Files of the Investigation papers were
supplied to the Complainant on 7.5.2012.

On examination it was found that Previous Statements and
Investigation reports concerned with the Investigation were
deliberately not part of the Papers released to the Complainant.
Specifically, IO AK MalhotraÂ’s Report dated 12.5.2010, Chairman SIT
remarks dated 14.5.2010 and Further Investigation reports dated
17.11.2010, 15.3.2011 and 24.4.2011 were requested and urged by the
Complainant before this Ld Court.  An examination of the documents
provided by the SIT also found that the SIT had also excluded
several Previous Statements of Accused and Other Witnesses from the
records of the Investigation provided to the SIT.

SIT continued with misleading this Court as to its role and its
investigation, continuing to shield powerful accused following which
an Order turning down these requests was passed by this Ld Court on
16.07.2012.

The Complainant, aggrieved by this Order moved the HonÂ’ble Supreme
Court through SLP 8989/2012, a copy of which was also supplied to
this Ld Court at the relevant time. During the pendency of this SLP,
the SIT in a thoroughly malafide manner pushed this Court to deny
the Complainant her lawful right to file a Protest Petition.

Four hearings of this SLP 8989/2012 (3.12.2012, 10.12.2012,
17.1.2013, and 7.2.2013) restored the right of the Complainant to
access all documents denied by the SIT and also restored her right
to file the Protest Petition. Only chairman SITÂ’s remarks dated
14.5.2010 were kept confidential by the HonÂ’ble Supreme Court.The
SIT today is deliberately ignoring all arguments on merit including
the lawful right of the Complainant to file a Protest petition.

The Complainant is once again providing relevant Orders of the
HonÂ’ble Supreme Court.

The request is that these arguments of the SIT be recorded in
writing. All aspects of the ComplainantÂ’s submissions have been made
in detailed and in writing but the SIT, by deliberately making
spurious oral arguments is committing a contempt of the Supreme
Court.
 

Teesta Setalvad, Secretary

Other Trustees:  

I.M. Kadri,                Nandan Maluste      

Cyrus Guzder        Javed Akhtar                       
Alyque Padamsee
Anil Dharker          Ghulam Peshimam  
        Rahul Bose                            
               

Javed Anand         Cedric
Prakash