explained | Understanding the Supreme Court’s decision on the Zakia Jafri protest petition

the story So Far: The Supreme Court dismissed a protest petition by Zakia Jafri, widow of late Congress leader Ehsan Jafri, challenging the clean chit given to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the then Gujarat Chief Minister and 63 other senior state officials for their alleged role. was given. 2002 Communal riots The apex court in its 452-page judgment quashed allegations of a “larger conspiracy” in the Gulberg Housing Society case, in which Ehsan Jafri was among those killed. The massacre took place soon after the Godhra train tragedy, in which 59 kar sevaks lost their lives on February 27, 2002.

What was the Supreme Court’s decision?

A three-judge bench headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar observed that the inaction of “certain officers of a section of the state administration” cannot be a ground to infer a premeditated criminal conspiracy by the state government, and found no fault in the particular . The report of the Investigative Team (SIT) contains “no material worthy of name which at any stage may raise suspicion of meeting of the minds of all concerned; and in particular, bureaucrats, politicians, public prosecutors or members of the political establishment of the State— For creating a larger criminal conspiracy at the highest level to cause and incite mass violence against the minority community across the State,” the judgment said. The court further upheld the SIT report, saying, “Final report dated No fault can be found with the approach of the SIT in its submission on 8.2.2012”. It conducted a “final report backed by sound reasoning, exposing the analytical mind and dealing objectively in all aspects”.

“The SIT has not found any conspiracy, which does not have any conspiracy linking individual and separate acts of arson and looting or outrageous claims made in sting operation or personal statements/publications of alleged hate speech.” The Bench upheld the decision of the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate in admitting the closure of the SIT – appointed by the Supreme Court itself in 2008 – and dismissed the protest petition filed by Zakia Jafri.

What were the criticisms of the Supreme Court?

The court came down heavily on two state officials, Sanjiv Bhatt and RB Sreekumar, and former Gujarat home minister Haren Pandya, saying, “At the end of the day, it appears to us that there is a joint effort of disgruntled officials of the state. Gujarat had to create a sensation among others by making such disclosures which were false to their own knowledge. The lies of their claims were completely exposed by the SIT after a thorough investigation.”

The court held that the officials were not part of the meeting to decide the future course of action when the violence broke out on February 27, 2002. Mr. Bhatt, it may be recalled, told the Supreme Court that on the night of February 27, 2002, Mr. Modi had asked top police officers to vent their anger to Hindus. Similarly, Sreekumar, in his statement before the Nanavati-Shah Commission, had pointed out the suspicious role of the administration during the violence.

Such officers need to be put in the dock for “boiling the pot”, the court said, adding that “interestingly, the present proceedings have been carried forward for the past 16 years with the audacity that every person involved in the process of exposing The integrity of the officer should be questioned. Crooked tactics adopted. In fact, all those involved in such abuse of process should stand in the dock and proceed according to law.”

Incidentally, the SIT, headed by former CBI director RK Raghavan, submitted the closure report nearly a decade ago. Back in 2012, it gave clean chit to Mr. Modi and 63 others, finding no prosecutable evidence against them. The Metropolitan Magistrate accepted the report following which Zakia Jafri went to the Gujarat High Court. In October 2017, the state high court dismissed his plea. In September 2018, Ms Jafri approached the Supreme Court and filed a protest petition against the acceptance of the SIT report. In December last year, the top court had reserved its verdict.

What happened in Gulberg Society?

As tension in Ahmedabad peaked after the Godhra tragedy, around 90 local residents gathered at Ehsan Jafri’s Gulberg residence, hoping for protection from the mob at the former MP’s house. Sensing the possibility of violence, Mr. Jafri called on several officials and leaders for help. In the absence of any practical help, Mr. Jaffrey had lost hope. The first attack happened around 9:30 in the morning. The police assured of help but soon the mob surrounded the Gulbarg Society. Gas cylinders were thrown from outside the premises and kerosene cans were thrown on the road. The house was set on fire. Mr. Jafri came out of the crowd pleading for the lives of the people inside the house. He was then dragged on the road, mutilated and then killed. His body was not recovered. Seventy-nine people were killed, as claimed by local residents; Officially 39 casualties were reported.

Also remembered as an eyewitness in Rakesh Sharma’s National Award winning documentary the final solution Based on Gujarat Violence, “Police omitted names of main culprits of Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Bajrang Dal from FIR. We were offered money to withdraw the case, not to identify the culprits.”

What happened after the verdict?

Within hours of the Supreme Court ruling, human rights activist Teesta Setalvad, said to be behind Ms Jafri’s protracted legal battle, was taken into custody by the police. Sri Sreekumar was also arrested. Mr. Bhatt is already in custody.