FRONT PAGE | Tuesday, March 16, 2010 | Email | Print |  | Back
SIT meant to oversee, not investigate: SC
Pioneer News Service | New Delhi
Jethmalani argues accused cannot be summoned by team
The Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the post-Godhra riots came under fire in the Supreme Court after serious questions were raised on its power to summon accused.
With Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi summoned to appear before the SIT, headed by former CBI Director RK Raghavan on March 21, the Supreme Court agreed that the SIT was set up to merely “look into” complaints and not investigate them.
This fact emerged after senior advocate Ram Jethmalani, appearing for a former MLA, Kalubhai Maliwad, made a blistering attack on the SIT and its manner of functioning in summoning the accused.
Explaining the flaw, Jethmalani cited an April 27, 2009 order passed by the apex Bench hearing the Godhra riots to drive home his point. He said, “By virtue of this order (passed on April 27, 2009), the investigation has not been handed to the SIT.”
Jethmalani argued that summoning of an accused by the SIT amounted to carrying out investigation, which cannot sustain in the light of this order. The Bench of Justices DK Jain, P Sathasivam and Aftab Alam agreed with the line of argument and directed the matter to be listed along with the batch of petitions filed by National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Citizens for Justice and Peace and Devendrabhai Pathak to be heard in the first week of April.
Following the April 27 order, the apex court passed a subsequent order on May 1, 2009 transferring all Godhra riots cases involving 63 accused (involving Kalubhai Maliwad) to be examined by SIT. Claiming that “the target of this case is not my client, but accused no 1 (Narendra Modi),” Jethmalani demanded recall of the order handing over the cases to the SIT.
Dealing another blow to the SIT was a letter produced in the court by the Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium. The letter was written by senior public prosecutor RK Shah, who was the State’s counsel in the court in the Gulbarga Society riot case involving the death of Congress MP Ehsan Jaffri.
The letter, Subramanium pointed out, revealed disturbing events to doubt the fairness and independence of the SIT and the presiding officer hearing the case. It was on account of several limitations faced by him that led Shah to resign. Taking the letter on record, the Bench directed the trial in Gulbarga case, where Modi is named an accused, to be deferred till a suitable appointment is made.
But the trouble for the SIT was far from over as amicus curiae and senior advocate Harish Salve informed the Bench about another application being filed by one Illyas Hussain Mulla, a witness in the Godhra riots, alleging attempts to torture and threaten him by SIT members. Adding to it, Jethmalani pointed out that another member of the SIT, Sivanand Jha, was himself an accused in a case and is probing the matters along with Raghavan, IPS officers Geeta Johri and Ashish Bhatia.
With a recent Supreme Court judgement transferring the case of fake encounter killing of Sohrabuddin from the SIT to CBI, the petitioners in the case also lost no opportunity to attack the SIT, particularly Geetha Johri, against whom the judgement recorded adverse findings. But Salve suggested to the court not to pass any order as he was pursuing the matter with Raghavan. In the light of varied allegations being made against SIT members, the Bench sought Raghavan’s comments on the allegations.
Email | Print | Rate:
|