Tale of two reports: Amicus Curiae says investigate Modi

Despite the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) refusing to believe the testimony of IPS official Sanjiv Bhatt, the amicus curiae in the case said a case should be filed and investigations carried out into allegations that Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi had asked officials not to stop the 2002 communal riots in the state.

“In my opinion, the offences which can be made out against Shri Modi, at this prima facie stage, are offences inter alia under Sections 153A (1) (a) & (b), 153B (1) (c), 166 and 505 (2) of the IPC,” Raju Ramchandran, amicus curiae appointed by the Supreme Court, said in his report.

The sections are related to promoting enmity between groups on the basis of religion, a public servant disobeying the law and making statements conducing public mischief.

Bhatt had been jailed and subsequently released on bail. He had been accused of wrongfully confining a constable, fabricating evidence and threatening a public servant by a constable who had earlier supported his testimony.

The amicus curiae’s report was made public after a Ahmedabad court today gave Zakia Jafri, a petitioner in the Gulbarg society massacre case, access to the SIT report and documents attached to it.

Bhatt had claimed that the Gujarat Chief Minister had held in a meeting on 27 February 2002 in which he had instructed officials not to take action against the rioting mobs.

Ramchandran, who had been asked to assist the court in the hearing of the case, said that the SIT had found that there was a meeting held at the residence of Chief Minister Narendra Modi on 27 February 2002 but senior police officials and bureaucrats who were present at the meeting said that IPS official Sanjiv Bhatt was not there.

The SIT had also found that there was no evidence that Modi had instructed officials to let the riots to continue or had stationed two police officials in the police control room in Ahmedabad to carry out this alleged instruction.

However, Bhatt who was the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Intelligence), submitted two affidavits from KD Panth and Tarachand Yadav who said that the IPS official was present at the Chief Minister’s residence.

Ramchandran noted that Bhatt’s statement against Modi had been deemed unbelieveable by the SIT since other officials present at the meeting had not supported his statement, he had been silent for nine years and a number of deparmental proceedings against him.

“Therefore, the SIT opines that his statement is motivated and cannot be relied upon,” he said.

The lawyer also expresses his skepticism about Bhatt’s testimony saying,“I am left with no doubt that he is actively ‘strategizing’, and is in touch with those who would benefit or gain mileage from his testimony.” However, these can’t be used to ignore his statement, he notes.

Noting that there was no documentary evidence of what happened at the meeting the Gujarat Chief Minister held at his residence, Ramchandran has said that the SIT seemed to have chosen to believe officials senior to Bhatt.

The SIT itself noted in its report that many of the officials present at the meeting had retired and taken up positions in the state government, others claimed to have forgotten the meeting and still others were serving officials who did not want to take on the political establishment.

Ramchandran said he found it difficult to accept the SIT’s decision against Bhatt since he believed the IPS official would have been called for the meeting due to his position in the police force at the time.

“It seems quite natural for an officer from the Intelligence to be called: The Chief Minister would, after all, have to be made aware of the intelligence gathered by the police till then,” he noted, but cautioned that a cross examination of the IPS official’s testimony would be needed.

The amicus curiae said that since there was no clinching evidence that proved Bhatt’s allegations was false, further legal proceedings should have been initiated against the Gujarat Chief Minister and said his innocence could be proved before the court following the trial.