The Supreme Court on Friday turned down a plea challenging a clean chit to the then Gujarat chief minister and current Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi and others for the 2002 Gujarat riots.
A three-judge bench of the top court with Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, and CT Ravikumar while dismissing the plea noted that the claim of the criminal conspiracy in the Gujarat riots by the then CM and other state functionaries was false.
“….the structure of larger criminal conspiracy at the highest level has been erected. The same stands collapsed like a house of cards, after thorough investigation by the SIT,” the bench said.
The observation came after the court accepted the argument of the state of Gujarat that the testimonies of Sanjiv Bhatt, Haren Pandya, and also of RB Sreekumar were only to sensationalise and politicise the matters in the issue, although replete with falsehood.
“For, persons not privy to the stated meeting, where utterances were allegedly made by the then Chief Minister, falsely claimed themselves to be eye-witnesses and after thorough investigation by the SIT, it has become clear that their claim of being present in the meeting was itself false to their knowledge,” the bench said.
“We hasten to add that it is only because of the ultra-sensational revelation projected by Mr Sanjiv Bhatt and Mr Haren Pandya, who unabashedly claimed to be privy to the utterances made by the then Chief Minister in an official meeting, the constitutional functionaries and this Court was required to move into action taking serious note of the same. But, after thorough investigation by the SIT, the falsity of such claim has been fully exposed on the basis of credible indisputable materials collated by the SIT during the investigation in that regard,” the court noted further.
Dismissing the plea filed by Zakia Jafri, widow of Congress leader Ehsaan Jafri, the court raised questions over the credibility of the petitioner and said, “Appellant in filing the protest petition had the gumption to assert that the list of persons was not exhaustive besides naming new persons as offenders. In the name of protest petition appellant was also indirectly questioning the decisions rendered by the Courts in other cases including sub judice matters, for reasons best known to her.”
“She was obviously doing so under dictation of someone. In fact, the sizeable contents of the protest petition are founded on the affidavits filed by those persons, whose version have been found to be replete with falsehood,” the bench stated.
The court also noted that the SIT had formed its opinion after considering all the materials collated during the investigation.
“The question of further investigation would have arisen only on the availability of new material/information in connection with the allegation of larger conspiracy at the highest level, which is not forthcoming in this case,” the order read.
During the course of the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for Jafri had essentially argued that the special investigation team had not conducted a thorough probe into the matter and had ignored crucial evidence including certain sting operations by Tehelka, which suggested a larger conspiracy of complicity in the highest echelons of the state’s power structure.
He had also stated that the purpose of the plea was not to target anybody but only to seek a thorough investigation into materials indicating deeper involvement.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for the SIT had argued that the Supreme Court-appointed body had done a thorough investigation. “An SIT appointed by the Supreme Court investigated the cases… Now, what do they want? Scotland Yard?” he said.
Rohatgi termed the allegations of a larger conspiracy “baseless”.
Read all the Latest News , Breaking News watch Top Videos and Live TV here.