New Delhi: Then chief minister Narendra Modi made repeated calls to maintain peace, and allegations against him were based on false claims by “disgruntled state officers”, the Supreme Court (SC) ruled Friday, dismissing claims of a “larger conspiracy” in the 2002 Gujarat riots.
In doing so, the bench comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and C.T. Ravikumar upheld the closure report filed by the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) in February 2012, on a complaint filed by Zakia Jafri, whose husband and Congress leader Ehsan Jafri was killed in the Gulbarg Society massacre during the riots.
The SIT had given a clean chit to Modi and over 60 senior Gujarat officials. The SC was hearing a petition filed by Jafri against the SIT’s report.
The court rejected allegations of a “criminal conspiracy at the highest level”, observing that the inaction or failure of “some officials of one section of the state administration” cannot be the basis to infer a pre-planned criminal conspiracy by the Gujarat government.
In its 452-page judgment, the court noted that Jafri’s allegations against Modi and others were largely based on the “ultra-sensational revelation” made by former Gujarat director general of police (DGP) R.B. Sreekumar, former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt and former state home minister Haren Pandya.
They had claimed that as CM, Modi had chaired a meeting in Gandhinagar on 27 February 2002, and had made certain statements “to allow vent to the Hindu anger on the minority in the wake of the Godhra incident”.
Earlier that day, kar sevaks returning from Ayodhya on board the Sabarmati Express were allegedly attacked and coaches of the train set on fire at Godhra railway station. This incident, in which 59 people died, preceded the riots in the state.
The apex court, however, asserted that the claim by Bhatt, Pandya and Sreekumar “was only to sensationalise and politicise the matters in issue, although, replete with falsehood”. The claim, it said, “stands collapsed like a house of cards, after thorough investigation by the SIT”.
“At the end of the day, it appears to us that a coalesced effort of the disgruntled officials of the state of Gujarat along with others was to create sensation by making revelations which were false to their own knowledge,” read the judgment.
The court also observed that the SIT had, in fact, managed to collect material showing “the amount of hard work and planning of the concerned state functionaries in their attempt to control the spontaneous evolving situation of mass violence across the state of Gujarat”.
It said that despite several handicaps faced by the administration, including the inadequate state police forces, then CM Narendra Modi made repeated calls to maintain peace, and was quick to seek replenishment of the police force with central forces and the army.
The court even went on to remark: “The protagonists of quest for justice sitting in a comfortable environment in their air-conditioned office may succeed in connecting failures of the state administration at different levels during such a horrendous situation, little knowing or even referring to the ground realities and the continual effort put in by the duty holders in controlling the spontaneous evolving situation unfolding after mass violence across the state.”
The Gandhinagar meeting
The court had also considered a 2011 report submitted by the amicus curiae in the case, senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, who had opined that prima facie, offences were made out against Modi, under sections 153A, 153B, 166 and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of statements made by him during a meeting on 27 February 2002.
However, in its final report filed in 2011, the SIT was of the view that “the offences under the aforesaid sections of law are not made out against Shri Narendra Modi”.
The SIT and the amicus were referring to allegations by Sreekumar, Bhatt and Pandya, regarding the 2002 meeting chaired by Modi in Gandhinagar. The three had claimed that in that meeting, Modi had made certain statements “to allow vent to the Hindu anger on the minority in the wake of the Godhra incident”.
However, the apex court noted that the SIT had duly looked into these allegations and had dismissed them. It stated that according to other officials present in that meeting, neither Bhatt, Sreekumar nor Pandya were in attendance, and that this claim was a “figment of imagination”. The court also called Sreekumar a “disgruntled officer”.
‘Questioning wisdom of the court’
In its judgment, the court said that to make out a case of a larger criminal conspiracy, “it is essential to establish a link indicative of meeting of minds of the concerned persons for commission of the crime(s)”. It said that accepting the argument of a larger conspiracy behind the riots would raise the question whether the Godhra train burning was also the “outcome of alleged larger criminal conspiracy”.
“Such a view would be preposterous,” the judgment said.
It then upheld the SIT report, saying that it was “backed by firm logic, expositing analytical mind and dealing with all aspects objectively for discarding the allegations regarding larger criminal conspiracy (at the highest level) for causing and precipitating mass violence across the state against the minority community during the relevant period.”
The court opined that Zaffri’s allegations were “bordering on undermining the integrity and sincerity of the members of the SIT”, and were “also in the nature of questioning the wisdom of this court”.
It also observed that the matter had been pursued for the last 16 years, “with the audacity to question the integrity of every functionary involved in the process of exposing the devious stratagem adopted (to borrow the submission of learned counsel for the SIT), to keep the pot boiling, obviously, for ulterior design.”
“As a matter of fact, all those involved in such abuse of process, need to be in the dock and proceeded with in accordance with law,” it added.
The timeline
In 2006, Jafri had filed a complaint with the then Gujarat DGP, demanding registration of an FIR against 63 people, who according to her, were involved in a larger conspiracy and abetment of the crimes that resulted in the Gujarat riots in February 2002.
She had levelled allegations against Modi, as well as other ministers of the state, senior police officials and civil servants, under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including section 302 (murder), along with provisions of the Gujarat Police Act and the Human Rights Act.
Jafri had also approached the Gujarat High Court, demanding registration of an FIR. However, the high court rejected this plea in June 2006, after which she challenged this order in the Supreme Court.
The apex court had already appointed a five-member SIT headed by former Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) chief R.K. Raghavan to probe several riot cases in 2008. In 2009, it directed this SIT to also “look into” Jafri’s complaint.
The SIT submitted its report in May 2011, recommending closure of Jafri’s complaint. This report was also examined by amicus curiae senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, who submitted his own report on the basis of this analysis in July 2011. Post this, the SIT submitted another report in September 2011, dealing with Ramachandran’s observations.
The SIT submitted its final report before a magistrate who was hearing the Gulberg Society case, in February 2012. Jafri filed a protest petition before the magistrate in April 2013 against the SIT’s report. However, the magistrate rejected this petition in December 2013, and accepted the closure report filed by the SIT. The high court also rejected an appeal against the magistrate’s order in 2017. She then approached the SC in 2018.
(Edited by Gitanjali Das)