|
|
|
|
Posted on 12 September 2011 |
|
| CURRENT AFFAIRS |
|
SUPREME COURT |
|
Modi thanks God, BJP elated, and Congress cautious
Three-judge Bench headed by Justice DK Jain leaves it up to the Ahmedabad trial court to decide further whether to proceed against him and 62 others
Iftikhar Gilani
New Delhi
 |
The Congress asserted that the Supreme Court did not give a "clean chit" to Narendra Modi but asked the trial magistrate to proceed further |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Supreme Court on Monday lifted the Damocles’ sword that hung over the head of Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi over the past three years, making him tweet "God is Great" and sent his Bhartiya Janata Party into celebrations at the reprieve to its icon who it hopes to see as Prime Minister one day.
However, the three-judge Bench headed by Justice DK Jain did not exonerate Modi, leaving it up to the Ahmedabad trial court to decide whether to proceed against him and 62 others. Nevertheless its refusal to pass any order on his alleged inaction during the post-Godhra riots came as a big political relief ahead of the Assembly elections due in Gujarat next year.
The BJP was also elated that the Supreme Court stops monitoring the riot cases it was doing since March 2008 and its senior leader, Arun Jaitley, a senior lawyer advising Modi on the legal matters, was quick to claim the Apex Court pulled out finding no evidence of his involvement in the riots.
The Congress, however, asserted that the Supreme Court did not give a "clean chit" to Modi but asked the trial magistrate to proceed further. It spokesman Abhishek Manu Singhavi told reporters the Apex Court certainly did not indict anybody but left it up to the magistrate to decide.
Modi was not accused of any role in the riots in any police complaints or court cases until June 2008 when Zakia Jafri, widow of slain former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri, named him along with 62 others including ministers and high-ranking officials for role in allowing rioters attack the Gulberg Society they lived in Ahmedabad.
In March 2009, the Supreme Court ordered the Special Investigation Team (SIT) it had constituted with former CBI chief R K Raghavan as its head to probe her complaint on the role of the chief minister and collusion of the state machinery with the rioters. The SIT summoned and interrogated Modi for several hours in March last year.
In its order on Monday, the Supreme Court directed the SIT to furnish to the trial magistrate the inquiry report it had filed with its registry in May last year to proceed further, noting that it can not monitor the case once the charge-sheet had been filed in the case. It had stayed the trial of the Gulberg Society case before the magistrate in March last year.
Singhavi, who is also a senior advocate, said even if the SIT report says no evidence against Modi, the magistrate will have to give an opportunity to Zakia Jafri to contest before deciding whether to make Modi an accused in the case or not. Another spokesman Rashid Alvi said: "After a decision by the lower court, the doors of the higher courts are still open for aggrieved persons."
Singhavi went on to blast the BJP for its self-congratulatory "tamasha" distorting the Supreme Court's order, saying it is "not a responsible reaction from a responsible party," and gave six legal arguments to claim Modi is still in the shadow of the charges of his role in the most heinous carnage that took place in Gandhi's Gujarat.
BJP spokesman Prakash Javadekar said the Supreme Court has upheld the "due process of law" and as such "we can understand the desperation and unhappiness of Modi-baiters." After this verdict, the hate campaign against Modi has lost as it can never win, he added.
The BJP's patriarch Lal Krishna Advani led the party bursting into rejoice as he hailed Modi as a role model CM and an outstanding leader of BJP and did not rule out he becoming the Prime Minister one day, saying "he will discharge any responsibility assigned by the party."
Jaitley skirted the same question, saying Modi "is always among prominent leaders of our party. He said the BJP stands vindicated by the Supreme Court ruling and now "no doubt is left that there was no evidence as far as the chief minister is considered."
He pointed out that the BJP always maintained that the charges against Modi were "false" as he was never made an accused in a single charge-sheet despite repeated re-investigations of the cases and he hopes that the trial that was stayed by the Supreme Court will be now completed expeditiously."Only propaganda (unleashed by the Congress) and falsehood can never be substitute for hard evidence before the court," he said adding that it is crystal clear now that the facts are not against Modi.
Refusing to comment on charge that the SIT had gone soft on Modi in its report, its chief Raghavan said the report was filed to the Supreme Court in a sealed cover and as such he cannot discuss it. He can only say that "the SIT will give our utmost assistance to cooperate with the trial court in arriving at the truth, as directed by the Honourable Supreme Court."
After the SIT filed its probe report in a sealed cover, the court had also asked senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, assisting it as amicus curie, to analyse it and file a confidential report. Ramachandran subsequently had submitted his report to the court, which passed the order after going through his and SIT reports and referred the case back to the Ahmedabad magistrate concerned to decide the further course of action.
It was back in March 2008 that the Supreme Court had asked the Gujarat Government to re-investigate 10 cases of the 2002 Gujarat riots, including the Gulberg Society killings. It then created the SIT to probe these particular cases afresh, staying the trials started on the basis of the charge-sheets filed by the Gujarat Police.
A year later in March 2009, it referred Zakia's complaint against Modi to the SIT to probe. In September same year, it lifted stay on trial of all cases, including Gulberg Society case, and the trial began. It, however, again stayed the Gulberg trial in March last year after special public prosecutor R K Shah resigned, accusing the trial judge and SIT of being "soft on the accused."
The SIT went ahead with its investigations and even interrogated Modi and submitted its final report in May 14 last year. It was, however, asked by the Supreme Court in March this year to look into the doubts raised by amicus curiae Raju Ramchandran, who had replaced Prashant Bhushan as amicus curiae.
Ramchandran filed his own report in July after visiting Ahmedabad and talking to some witnesses. The Supreme Court decided to keep the report confidential and declined to allow access not only to the Gujarat government, but even the SIT. Former CBI chief Raghavan, who headed the SIT, however, expressed relief that the Court did not make any adverse comments on its findings and rather directed it to submit them to the trial court.
Iftikhar Gilani is Special Correspondent with Tehelka.com.
iftikhar@tehelka.com
|
OPERATIVE PARTS OF JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court on Monday reverted back the complaint of the slain former MP Ehsan Jafri's widow to the Ahmedabad Sessions Court, with the specific order not to close it without giving her a hearing.
Following are the operative parts of the order delivered by Supreme Court Bench of Jusices DK Jain, P Sathasivam and Aftab Alam on the petition of Zakia Jafri, widow of former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri killed in the 2002 riots in his Gulberg society flat in Ahmedabad:
"The appellant lost her husband, a former Member of Parliament, in the calamitous events which took place on 28th February, 2002, in the surroundings of Gulberg Society, Ahmedabad, where the appellant resided along with her family. An FIR relating to the incident was registered by the Police with Meghaninagar Police Station, Ahmedabad. After investigation, on the filing of the charge-sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Ahmedabad.
"We are of the opinion that bearing in mind the scheme of Chapter XII of the Code, once the investigation has been conducted and completed by the SIT, in terms of the orders passed by this Court from time to time, there is no course available in law, save and except to forward the final report under Section 173 (2) of the Code to the Court empowered to take cognizance of the offence alleged.
"Accordingly, we direct the Chairman, SIT to forward a final report, along with the entire material collected by the SIT, to the Court which had taken cognizance of Crime Report No.67 of 2002, as required under Section 173(2) of the Code. Before submission of its report, it will be open to the SIT to obtain from the Amicus Curiae copies of his reports submitted to this Court.
"The said Court will deal with the matter in accordance with law relating to the trial of the accused, named in the report/charge-sheet, including matters falling within the ambit and scope of Section 173(8) of the Code. However, at this juncture, we deem it necessary to emphasise that if for any stated reason the SIT opines in its report, to be submitted in terms of this order, that there is no sufficient evidence or reasonable grounds for proceeding against any person named in the complaint, dated 8th June 2006, before taking a final decision on such `closure' report, the Court shall issue notice to the complainant and make available to her copies of the statements of the witnesses, other related documents and the investigation report strictly in accordance with law as enunciated by this Court in Bhagwant Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police & Another.
"For the sake of ready reference, we may note that in the said decision, it has been held that in a case where the Magistrate to whom a report is forwarded under Section 173(2)(i) of the Code, decides not to take cognizance of the offence and to drop the proceedings or takes a view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the FIR, the Magistrate must give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report.
"Having so directed, the next question is whether this Court should continue to monitor the case any further. ...we are of the opinion that in the instant case we have reached a stage where the process of monitoring of the case must come to an end."
|
|
|
