Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Gujarat government, told a bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar that as Setalvad is the petitioner number two in the petition along with Zakia Jafri, it makes the proceedings an 'abuse of the process'
Supreme Court of India. File Pic
The Gujarat government told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that in the name of Zakia Jafri, social activist Teesta Setalvad wants to keep the “pot boiling” on the 2002 riots which would be a “travesty of justice” and the apex court may not encourage such petitions.
ADVERTISEMENT
Zakia Jafri, the wife of slain Congress leader Ehsan Jafri who was killed during the violence at Gulberg Society in Ahmedabad on February 28, 2002, has challenged the SIT's clean chit to 64 people including Narendra Modi, the then Gujarat chief minister during the riots in Gujarat.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Gujarat government, told a bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar that as Setalvad is the petitioner number two in the petition along with Zakia Jafri, it makes the proceedings an “abuse of the process”.
Mehta told the bench, also comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and C T Ravikumar, it is nobody's case that guilty of the 2002 riots have gone unpunished as trials have taken place and depending on the merits, the accused have been either convicted or acquitted in these cases.
“Now the question is, in the name of petitioner number one (Zakia Jafri), petitioner number two (Setalvad) wants to keep the pot boiling by saying that still do something, still direct this investigation, still direct further course etc., which in my respectful submission in the background of the facts which I have pleaded from the judicial pronouncements, would be travesty of justice,” the solicitor general said.
“Your lordships may not encourage such petitions,” he said while concluding his submissions for the state.
He said the petitioners have alleged in their argument that following the aftermath of the Godhra train burning incident and the resultant riots which took place in Gujarat, the state government did not take any steps.
Mehta said the state had constituted a commission of inquiry by a former judge of the apex court under The Commissions of Inquiry Act.
He said the commission had gathered voluminous records and came out with detailed report.
Mehta, who referred to the commission's report, said detailed facts of every district were examined and it was found that everyone did what they could do under the circumstances and the concerned authorities were at the vigil.
He argued that the complaint, which is “like an article in a newspaper, says that nobody discharged their duties. I am showing that everybody did their duty to the best of their abilities under the circumstances”.
Mehta said: “To satisfy your lordships conscience that now at this stage, at the behest of petitioner number two, in a 136 jurisdiction, any further exercise at their behest would not be in public interest.”
Article 136 of the Constitution deals with special leave to appeal by the apex court.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, told the bench that there were several materials on record which should have been probed by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) but it was not done.
He said he has limited himself to the undisputed documentary evidence.
“We just cannot wish it away and argue that the pot keeps boiling. That cannot be an argument by an SIT, I am sorry to say,” Sibal told the bench during the arguments which would continue on Wednesday.
The senior advocate, while referring to the records, said the SIT seems to have turned a blind eye to this.
“This is my concern. My concern is not that A should be convicted or B should be convicted. This can't happen in my country. This can't happen. Your lordships have to rise to the occasion to make sure this can never happen again,” he said.
On December 2, the state government had told the apex court that there is a larger conspiracy “orchestrated” by Teesta Setalvad to defame Gujarat for almost two decades.
Zakia Jafri's counsel had earlier argued that her complaint of 2006 was that there was “a larger conspiracy where there was bureaucratic inaction, police complicity, hate speeches and unleashing of violence".
Ehsan Jafri, the former MP, was among the 68 people killed in the violence, a day after the Godhra train incident.
The S-6 coach of Sabarmati Express was burnt at Godhra killing 59 people and triggering riots in Gujarat in 2002.
On February 8, 2012, the SIT had filed a closure report giving a clean chit to Modi, now the Prime Minister, and 63 others including senior government officials, saying there was "no prosecutable evidence" against them.
Zakia Jafri had filed a petition in the apex court in 2018 challenging the Gujarat High Court's October 5, 2017 order rejecting her plea against the SIT decision.
The plea also maintained that after the SIT gave a clean chit in its closure report before a trial judge, Zakia Jafri filed a protest petition which was dismissed by the magistrate without considering "substantiated merits".
The high court in its October 2017 order had said the SIT probe was monitored by the Supreme Court.
However, it partly allowed her petition as far as its demand for a further investigation was concerned saying she can approach an appropriate forum, including the magistrate's court, a division bench of the high court, or the Supreme Court seeking further investigation.
This story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed, agencies. Mid-day accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability, trustworthiness, reliability and data of the text. Mid-day management/mid-day.com reserves the sole right to alter, delete or remove (without notice) the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever.
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
