KRAIT
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Messages
- 16,971
- Reaction score
- -27
- Country
- Location
The Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT), chaired by former CBI director RK Raghavan who investigated the 2002 Gujarat riots has concluded in its 541-page closure report that the Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi took ample measures to control riots rather than stoking the fire as it is made to be believed. The SIT also questioned the motive behind filing a complaint against the Chief Minister by Zakia Jafri four years after the communal violence.
Here are a few highlights of SIT closure report
1. SIT on Narendra Modi’s role
The 541-page SIT closure report stated that Narendra Modi had taken all the necessary measures to control the 2002 riots. It cites,” Law and order review meetings were held by the Chief Minister and all the things were done to control the situation… the Army was called on time to contain the communal violence.”
The SIT also says, ” Modi was busy with steps to control the situation, establishment of relief camps for riot victims and also with efforts to restore peace and normalcy.” “In view of the detailed inquiry and satisfactory explanation of the person involved, no criminal case is made out against the Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi.”
2. SIT on Ehsan Jafri’s murder
The SIT in its report said no charges were levelled by the Zakia Jafri, who lost her husban MP Ehsaan Jafri (killed in riots) and are maintainable and also questioned the intention behind filing such a complaint four years after the incident. “In his interview, the Chief Minister has clearly referred to Jafris firing as ‘action’ and the massacre as ‘reaction’. It may be clarified here that in case late Ehsaan Jafri fired at the mob, this could be an immediate provocation to the mob, which had assembled there to take revenge of Godhra incidents from Muslims,” the report says.
The report goes on to question Zakia for delay in filing complaint against Narendra Modi and others, alleging their complicity in the riots which left over 1,000 people dead. Zakia was examined by the police for the first time in connection with the Gulburg Society cases on March 6, 2002 but she did not come up with allegations against Narendra Modi and others.
3. SIT on Zakia Jafri
“She appeared before the Nanavati Commission, probing the riots, on August 29, 2003 but did not disclose the facts given in this said complaint. In September 2003, she filed an affidavit in the apex court but did not level allegations against Modi and others.”
“It was for the first time in June 6, 2006, after a lapse of four years, that she came up with the said complaint. The allegations in the complaint are vague, general and stereotyped.”
“The amicus curiae has agreed with the findings of the SIT on all major issues. Whereas the complainant (Zakia) has made an allegation that the Chief Minister sponsored the riots, the amicus curiae has come to the conclusion that sufficient steps were taken by the Chief Minister to control the riots.”
4. SIT on Narendra Modi invoking Newton’s law of ‘action and reaction’
“In his interview, the Chief Minister has clearly referred to Jafri’s firing (on the mob gathered at his house) as ‘action’ and the massacre as ‘reaction’. It may be clarified here that in case late Ehsaan Jafri, fired at the mob, this could be an immediate provocation to the mob, which had assembled there to take revenge of Godhra incidents from Muslims.”
The SIT has said that even if Narendra Modi had told the police during the riots to allow the Hindus to vent their anger over the massacre of 56 kar sevaks in the Godhra train burning incident, the mere statement of those in the confines of a room does not constitute an offence. On this, the SIT seems to have based its report on public statements made by Modi during the riots.
“Interpretations made on alleged illegal instructions given by the Chief Minister by RB Shreekumar and suspended IPS Sanjiv Bhatt, appear to be without any basis. Further, even if such allegations are believed for the sake of argument, mere statement of alleged words in the four walls of a room does not constitute any offence,” says the report by the SIT, headed by RK Raghavan.
5. SIT on Raju Ramachandran report
The SIT finding is contradictory to the report of amicus curie Raju Ramchandran, who had opined that Narendra Modi can be prosecuted for “promoting enmity among different groups”. Ramchandran, a Supreme Court lawyer, has based his report on testimony of suspended IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt, who in an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, had alleged Narendra Modi gave instructions to top police officers to go slow on rioters.
Regarding Ramchandran’s report, the SIT has said the amicus curie had “erred” by relying solely on the statements given by Sanjiv Bhatt and concluding that certain offences can be made out against Narendra Modi.
The view of the amicus curiae that it does not appear very likely that a serving police officer would make such a serious allegation without some basis seems to be erroneous as Sanjiv Bhatt had been all along a delinquent in his career and trying to bargain with the Government, the report said.
The SIT has demolished all allegations raised in Ramchandran’s Report submitted to the court here. “The amicus curiae did not allege any conspiracy or abatement on the part of Chief Minister,” the SIT report noted.
6. SIT on rioters given a free hand
On the allegations that Narendra Modi, in a meeting of February 27, 2002, had told top police officers to allow Hindus to vent their anger in wake of Godhra train burning incident, the SIT has said there is no basis for levelling such charges. But even if such allegations are believed for sake of argument it does not constitute any offence, the Supreme Court-appointed probe agency maintained.
“… The interpretations made on alleged illegal instructions given by the Chief Minister by police officers RB Sreekumar and Sanjiv Bhatt appear to be without any basis. Further, even if such allegations are believed for sake of argument, mere statement of alleged words in the four walls of a room does not constitute any offence.”
7. SIT on Sanjiv Bhatt
The Special Investigation Team report says all seven top officers of the State administration had denied Sanjiv Bhatt’s presence at the February 27 meeting. These police officers and bureaucrats of the Home Department had denied that Narendra Modi had made any such statements (about giving free hand to rioters), it said.
“The claim of Sanjiv Bhatt has been dismissed by KD Chakravarthi, the then DGP, who has denied that Sanjiv Bhatt accompanied him in his staff car to the Chief Minister’s residence. Significantly, the log book of the vehicle of Chakravarthi has no mention of Sanjiv Bhatt.”
8. SIT on relief measures taken by Gujarat Government
“The Chief Minister said that relief and rehabilitation measures were initiated immediately and compensation packages were announced and implemented.” The SIT report says, “Narendra Modi said that perhaps for the first time in the country, a committee was constituted under the chairmanship of the Governor to review rehabilitation efforts. This high-level committee included Leader of the Opposition, members from the chamber of commerce, members from prominent NGOs etc.”
Why SIT gave a clean chit to Modi | Niti Central
Here are a few highlights of SIT closure report
1. SIT on Narendra Modi’s role
The 541-page SIT closure report stated that Narendra Modi had taken all the necessary measures to control the 2002 riots. It cites,” Law and order review meetings were held by the Chief Minister and all the things were done to control the situation… the Army was called on time to contain the communal violence.”
The SIT also says, ” Modi was busy with steps to control the situation, establishment of relief camps for riot victims and also with efforts to restore peace and normalcy.” “In view of the detailed inquiry and satisfactory explanation of the person involved, no criminal case is made out against the Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi.”
2. SIT on Ehsan Jafri’s murder
The SIT in its report said no charges were levelled by the Zakia Jafri, who lost her husban MP Ehsaan Jafri (killed in riots) and are maintainable and also questioned the intention behind filing such a complaint four years after the incident. “In his interview, the Chief Minister has clearly referred to Jafris firing as ‘action’ and the massacre as ‘reaction’. It may be clarified here that in case late Ehsaan Jafri fired at the mob, this could be an immediate provocation to the mob, which had assembled there to take revenge of Godhra incidents from Muslims,” the report says.
The report goes on to question Zakia for delay in filing complaint against Narendra Modi and others, alleging their complicity in the riots which left over 1,000 people dead. Zakia was examined by the police for the first time in connection with the Gulburg Society cases on March 6, 2002 but she did not come up with allegations against Narendra Modi and others.
3. SIT on Zakia Jafri
“She appeared before the Nanavati Commission, probing the riots, on August 29, 2003 but did not disclose the facts given in this said complaint. In September 2003, she filed an affidavit in the apex court but did not level allegations against Modi and others.”
“It was for the first time in June 6, 2006, after a lapse of four years, that she came up with the said complaint. The allegations in the complaint are vague, general and stereotyped.”
“The amicus curiae has agreed with the findings of the SIT on all major issues. Whereas the complainant (Zakia) has made an allegation that the Chief Minister sponsored the riots, the amicus curiae has come to the conclusion that sufficient steps were taken by the Chief Minister to control the riots.”
4. SIT on Narendra Modi invoking Newton’s law of ‘action and reaction’
“In his interview, the Chief Minister has clearly referred to Jafri’s firing (on the mob gathered at his house) as ‘action’ and the massacre as ‘reaction’. It may be clarified here that in case late Ehsaan Jafri, fired at the mob, this could be an immediate provocation to the mob, which had assembled there to take revenge of Godhra incidents from Muslims.”
The SIT has said that even if Narendra Modi had told the police during the riots to allow the Hindus to vent their anger over the massacre of 56 kar sevaks in the Godhra train burning incident, the mere statement of those in the confines of a room does not constitute an offence. On this, the SIT seems to have based its report on public statements made by Modi during the riots.
“Interpretations made on alleged illegal instructions given by the Chief Minister by RB Shreekumar and suspended IPS Sanjiv Bhatt, appear to be without any basis. Further, even if such allegations are believed for the sake of argument, mere statement of alleged words in the four walls of a room does not constitute any offence,” says the report by the SIT, headed by RK Raghavan.
5. SIT on Raju Ramachandran report
The SIT finding is contradictory to the report of amicus curie Raju Ramchandran, who had opined that Narendra Modi can be prosecuted for “promoting enmity among different groups”. Ramchandran, a Supreme Court lawyer, has based his report on testimony of suspended IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt, who in an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, had alleged Narendra Modi gave instructions to top police officers to go slow on rioters.
Regarding Ramchandran’s report, the SIT has said the amicus curie had “erred” by relying solely on the statements given by Sanjiv Bhatt and concluding that certain offences can be made out against Narendra Modi.
The view of the amicus curiae that it does not appear very likely that a serving police officer would make such a serious allegation without some basis seems to be erroneous as Sanjiv Bhatt had been all along a delinquent in his career and trying to bargain with the Government, the report said.
The SIT has demolished all allegations raised in Ramchandran’s Report submitted to the court here. “The amicus curiae did not allege any conspiracy or abatement on the part of Chief Minister,” the SIT report noted.
6. SIT on rioters given a free hand
On the allegations that Narendra Modi, in a meeting of February 27, 2002, had told top police officers to allow Hindus to vent their anger in wake of Godhra train burning incident, the SIT has said there is no basis for levelling such charges. But even if such allegations are believed for sake of argument it does not constitute any offence, the Supreme Court-appointed probe agency maintained.
“… The interpretations made on alleged illegal instructions given by the Chief Minister by police officers RB Sreekumar and Sanjiv Bhatt appear to be without any basis. Further, even if such allegations are believed for sake of argument, mere statement of alleged words in the four walls of a room does not constitute any offence.”
7. SIT on Sanjiv Bhatt
The Special Investigation Team report says all seven top officers of the State administration had denied Sanjiv Bhatt’s presence at the February 27 meeting. These police officers and bureaucrats of the Home Department had denied that Narendra Modi had made any such statements (about giving free hand to rioters), it said.
“The claim of Sanjiv Bhatt has been dismissed by KD Chakravarthi, the then DGP, who has denied that Sanjiv Bhatt accompanied him in his staff car to the Chief Minister’s residence. Significantly, the log book of the vehicle of Chakravarthi has no mention of Sanjiv Bhatt.”
8. SIT on relief measures taken by Gujarat Government
“The Chief Minister said that relief and rehabilitation measures were initiated immediately and compensation packages were announced and implemented.” The SIT report says, “Narendra Modi said that perhaps for the first time in the country, a committee was constituted under the chairmanship of the Governor to review rehabilitation efforts. This high-level committee included Leader of the Opposition, members from the chamber of commerce, members from prominent NGOs etc.”
Why SIT gave a clean chit to Modi | Niti Central
