Menu

Citizens for Justice and Peace

Press Release: Seventh day of Arguments in Zakia Jafri Protest Petition

24, Jul 2013

 

The SIT, instead
of functioning like a dispassionate investigating agency has gone
out on a limb to disprove the presence for former MOS Revenue, Haren
Pandya and former DCP-Int Sanjiv Bhatt at the law and order meeting
that took place at A-1 Narendra ModiÂ’s residence on the late night
of 27.2.2002 argued counsel for Zakia Jafri before the 11th
Metropolitan Magistrate Ganatra today. While evidence through its
own investigations suggests that this meeting, called a law and
order meeting went on from 30 minutes to 2 hours (statements of
Justices Hosbet Suresh and PB Sawant of the Concerned Citizens
Tribunal, former ACS, Swarnakantha Verma, and former CP Ahmedabad,
PC Pande, the SIT instead of putting the variegated evidence in its
final report has shown its bias when all it has done is tried to
state that inflammatory, criminal and unconstitutional words were
not spoken by A-1 who was also the chief minister that day. The
timing and structure of the meeting can be decided only after
detailed examination of evidence in trial. Reading from PC PandeÂ’s
statement before the SIT given on 14.01.2012 Desai argued that the
meeting could have gone on till 1 a.m. on 28.2.2002.

The
SIT, while going out on a limb to reject the possibility of Sanjiv
BhattÂ’s presence despite the fact he claims he was there, log book
of his vehicle have mysteriously vanished and the inward and outward
Fax Register of the Intelligence Bureau is missing, happily accepts
the presence of one Prakash Shah (Addl. Secretary Law and Order who
emerges as an alibi for A-1 Modi after the final order of the
Supreme Court.

Moreover, quoting from Sections 461 and 462 of the Gujarat Police
Manual that outline the duties of the State Intelligence Bureau,
Desai argued that such a meeting, if indeed it was a Law and Order
meeting, should have the presence of an official of the IB. If
Raigar was on leave, and the next in seniority OP Mathur was on
leave, and Bhatt was deputing as DCP-Communal on 27.2.2002 as has
been accepted and admitted by the SIT, he could well have been
present at the meeting. The SIT in its haste to play Judge when its
job was simply to fairly evaluate available evidence.

SIT
completely ignores the fact that in the law and order meeting
presence of intelligence officers was absolutely essential. Besides,
Mr. Bhatt was, on the given day, in charge of Intelligence
(Communal) and therefore it was natural that he was called for the
meeting. If on the other hand it is believed that intelligence
officers who are required to even gather intelligence information
about communal issues and law and order were not summoned, the
purpose of the meeting was not to control law and order problem but
to ensure that no steps are taken to control it.

No
significance is attributed by SIT to the fact that Minutes of
Meeting were not maintained though the burden under Section 106 of
Evidence Act would be on those who were required to maintain them.
Standard Operating Procedure demands that the chief ministerÂ’s
secretariat maintain such Minutes. Sanjiv BhattÂ’s past record is
examined in detail by SIT to discredit him while there is no such
attempt made to examine any other officers past or present record.
In any event it is not the job of SIT to weigh the evidence. Prakash
ShahÂ’s, (additional secretary) presence in the meeting is confirmed
without any verification though no one says he was present. Three of
the protagonists cannot recall if he was there,

Reading extensively from statements made before the SIT in evidence,
Mihir Desai argued that Sanjiv Bhatt (IPS) says he was present at
the meeting and unconstitutional, inflammatory and criminal
statement was made by Accused No.1; Haren Pandya (then MOS Revenue)
says he was present at the meeting and unconstitutional,
inflammatory and criminal statement was made by Accused No.1. RB
Sreekumar (then ADGP-SRP) says that Chakravarthi (then DGP Gujarat)
told him on the next day about inflammatory, unconstitutional and
criminal statement made by Accused No.1 The Presence of Ministers at
A-1 ModiÂ’s residence is accepted by Swarnakanta Verma (then ACS Home
acting for chief secretary) as also by Anil Mukhim (then OSD to A-1)
but the SIT Report totally ignores and falsely states that they
denied presence of Ministers. SIT misrepresents its own evidence.

Only
those policemen and officers are believed by SIT who have received
extensive post retirement posts from the Modi government added Desai
presenting a Note on Rewards given to Ashok Narayan (then ACS-Home),
PK Mishra (then Addl. Sec to the CM), PC Pande then CP Ahmedabad, K
Nityanadam (then Home Secretary) and GC Raigar then ADGP
Intelligence. Besides, SIT also ignores the fact that those who
supported Accused No.1 were favoured by the Accused No.1 by granting
plum posts and promotions. Anil Mukhim (according to reports in the
media today) has today been appointed as Principal Secretary
Revenue.

Moreover, SIT has ignored the evidence given by Haren PandyaÂ’s
father, Vithalbhai Pandya has made a statement corroborating what
Mr. Haren Pandya said but the fatherÂ’s statement is not even
considered by SIT

Worst
of all the mindset and bias of SIT can be gauged from the fact that
the SIT shockingly states at page 241 of its closure report that
even if Accused No.1 had made such a statement it does not amount to
an offence by ignoring the fact that if the statement had been made
it amounted to offences under Sections 107, 120 B, 153 A, 153 B and
166   of the Indian Penal Code.
The SIT ignores the fact that
none present at the meeting could have said that such a statement
was made since it would amount to participating in offences above
mentioned.

The
report of the Amicus Curiae report (25.7.2011) Raju Ramachandran who
clearly states that if indeed what Bhatt says is true, the words of
A-1 amount to offences under sections 166, 153a, 153b, 505 of the
Indian Penal Code Desai stressed that given the evidence actually
present offences of Conspiracy (120-b) and Abetment (section 107) of
the IPC are also made out. He was emphatic that Raju Ramachandran
whoÂ’s report has been deliberately ignored by SIT was brought in
after Sanjiv BhattÂ’s affidavit to the Supreme Court (14.4.2011)
where he alleged that the SIT was completely compromised and had
leaked information about BhattÂ’s statement to the SIT to A-1 Modi.

Counsel for Zakia Jafri and Citizens for Justice and Peace, Mihir
Desai also argued that police witnesses like Vinod Mal (S.P.
Surendranagar), Himanshu Bhat (S.P.) and Samiuallah Ansari (DCP) who
deposed before Justice Sawant and Justice Suresh concerning
instructions by political bosses are not even examined on these
statements made to the Tribunal (Concerned Citizens Tribunal,
Gujarat, 2002). This report records the inflammatory,
unconstitutional, criminal instructions given by A-1 to paralyse and
neutralise the machinery and states that the meeting lasted about to
two hours.

Besides, witnesses like Pradeep Sharma (IAS), Kuldeep Sharma (IPS)
make specific allegations about similar criminal instructions being
passed down by Arvind Sharma from the CMO but Arvind Sharma whoÂ’s
statement has been recorded earlier is also not examined concerning
these allegations. SIT has also ignored the evidence given by
serving officer Rahul Sharma during his deposition before the
Nanavati Commission (August 2004) where he states that while he was
talking to his superior, DGP Chakravarthi regarding reinforcements
of personnel, Chakravarthi had told him that the bureaucracy had
been neutralised.

The
impact of the Conspiracy hatched from the morning of 27.2.2002 after
the Godhra tragedy, consolidating into the criminal, inflammatory
and unconstitutional instructions given by A-1 can and should be
judged by the deliberate abdication of the rule of law from
different districts where collaborator accused acquiesced and where
Mobs were allowed to go on a violent rampage with targeted violence
against the Minorities, VHP strongmen were collaborators in this.
A-1 had first contacted Jaideep Patel, Gujarat secretary of the
Vishwa Hindu Parishad after getting news of the Godhra tragedy. The
Assembly that is in the midst of the Budget session too does not sit
after 28.2.2002, inexplicably.

The
concentration of powers in the cabinet minister for Home Affairs has
lain with A-1 since 2002, giving him sole control on the ACRs
(confidential reports) of serving IAS/IPS officers and their
postings (Rewards or Punishments). This concentration of power and
use for furtherance of the Conspiracy to subvert the criminal
justice system, rule of law and justice delivery has also been borne
out by the statements of then MOS Home Govardhan Zadaphiya. This
evidence has been ignored by the SIT. Powers of the chief minister
and home minister are outlined in the Gujarat Government Rules of
Business handed over to the Court (also completely bypassed by the
SIT).

Arguments by counsel for Zakia Jafri and Citizens for Justice and
Peace will continue

tomorrow.

Annexure

92-Shri Kuldeep Narayan Sharma-08-03-10.pdf
REWARDS (24.7.2013)

92-Shri Kuldeep Narayan Sharma-08-03-10.pdf


92-Shri Kuldeep Narayan Sharma-08-03-10



Sec 461 &462 of Guj Pol Manual 1975.pdf


Sec 461 &462 of Guj Police Manual 1975


FINAL REPORT - RAJU RAMACHANDRAN.pdf


FINAL REPORT – RAJU RAMACHANDRAN


129-Shri Pradeep Sharma-03-06-11.pdf

129-Shri Pradeep Sharma-03-06-11


56-Shri Gordhanbhai P Zadafia-22-10-10.PDF


56-Shri Gordhanbhai P Zadafia-22-10-10


130-Shri P.C. Pande-14-01-12.pdf


130-Shri P.C. Pande-14-01-12


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


 

Leave a Reply

Go to Top