The Tehelka report says that the amicus curiae said it is illogical that the probe panel used what it calls ‘unreliable’ witnesses to disbelieve Mr Bhatt’s testimony.
Sources say the SIT states in its latest report that seven officials present at the meeting, called by Mr Modi on February 27, 2002, had denied that Mr Bhatt was even there. The meeting was called to discuss law and order after the Godhra train burning incident that sparked the Gujarat riots.
Mr Ramachandran says the veracity of Mr Bhatt’s revelations could only be ascertained by conducting a criminal trial, and there may not be overwhelming evidence but ‘some’ evidence to proceed against Mr Modi, as mentioned in the Tehelka report.
Meanwhile, the Gujarat Chief Minister has found support in Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray. At a 70,000-strong rally in Thane attended by Sena supporters on Saturday, Mr Thackeray said that he had advised BJP veteran LK Advani against removing Mr Modi as the chief minister after the riots in 2002.
“Advani asked me a question at that time – What do you think of Narendra Modi? I said he belongs to your party, why should I think about him? He said, there is a move to remove him, what do you think should be done? I then told him, I think if you remove Narendra Modi, then Gujarat is gone,” said the Sena chief.
http://www.tehelka.com/amicus-report-on-modi-creates-public-outcry/
AMICUS CURIAE Raju Ramachandran’s report critiquing the evidence collected and conclusions drawn by RK Raghavan’s Special Investigation Team (SIT) on Narendra Modi’s role in the 2002 Gujarat riots is finally out in the public domain. As first reported by TEHELKA in its 11 February story (What the amicus really told the Supreme Court: Prosecute Modi) that Ramachandran had recommended Modi’s criminal prosecution for offences such as promoting religious enmity, doing acts prejudicial to national integration and wantonly disobeying law, the report blows craters in the SIT’s theory that there was no prosecutable evidence.
Most importantly, the amicus has dismissed SIT’s claim that IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt is an unreliable witness. He has also exposed the seemingly bizarre and illogical interpretations drawn by the SIT. For instance, what the SIT finds as non-prosecutable evidence, the amicus thinks it’s enough to commit the case for a criminal trial. He points out the self-contradictory positions the SIT has taken in its bid to close the case against Modi: It has used one set of unreliable witnesses (who have given evidence in favour of Modi) to discredit another set of witnesses (who gave evidence against him).
Also, what the SIT finds as evidence suitable for only departmental proceedings against certain police officers, the amicus finds them substantive enough to launch criminal proceedings against the erring officials. The SIT believes that senior IPS officers PB Gondia and MK Tandon — who deliberately chose to stay away from Gulberg Society, got bogus FIRs of communal violence registered at other relatively peaceful localities (to justify their absence from Gulberg) and paved the way for the mob to unleash the carnage — only deserve departmental action. The amicus believes this was no ordinary act of criminal negligence as it resulted in the loss of many innocent lives. But the SIT has chosen to ignore his observations.
The SIT probe against Modi and his government was ordered by the Supreme Court in 2009 while hearing a petition filed by Teesta Setalvad’s Citizens for Justice and Peace and Zakia Jafri, the widow of slain Congress leader Ehsan Jafri, who along with dozens of other Muslims, were hacked and burned to death during the riots. Zakia had made 32 specific allegations, the most serious being that Modi had given instructions to the then DGP, chief secretary and other senior officials to allow Hindus to freely vent their anger at Muslims for the Sabarmati Express carnage. This instruction was allegedly given at a meeting held at the CM’s bungalow in Gandhinagar on 27 February 2002.
In 2010, Bhatt, who was posted as a DCP with the state Intelligence Bureau during the riots, appeared before the probe and said that he was present at the above-mentioned meeting in which Modi had given illegal instructions to senior state functionaries. According to him, Modi had uttered these words: “There is a lot of anger in the people. This time, a balanced approach against Hindus and Muslims will not work. It is necessary that the anger of the people is allowed to be vented.”
He exposes how the SIT has taken self-contradictory positions in its bid to close the case
But the SIT claimed that Bhatt was not a reliable witness on the following grounds:
* Other senior officers present in the meeting have not corroborated Bhatt’s statement
* His silence for more than nine years without proper explanation appears to be suspicious
* There were a number of departmental inquiries pending against Bhatt and thus he had an axe to grind against the Modi government
But, after weighing the SIT’s arguments, the amicus has reached a diametrically opposite conclusion: “I disagree with the SIT’s conclusion that Bhatt should be disbelieved at this stage itself. I’m of the view that Bhatt needs to be put through the test of cross-examination, as do the others who deny his presence. I also find it difficult to accept the conclusion that Bhatt’s statement is motivated because he has an axe to grind.”
THE AMICUS’ report raises questions about various legal interpretations made by the SIT. He says that in the face of the fact that the SIT has no evidence to prove that Bhatt was present at a place other than Modi’s residence on the night of 27 February 2002, the only logical recourse would be to test the veracity of the claims made by Bhatt and the counter-claims of Modi and his team in a court.
“It is Bhatt’s word against the word of other officers, senior to him. The SIT has chosen to believe the senior officers,” says the amicus. Ramachandran has highlighted the SIT’s contradictory stand with regard to various witnesses. He has noted that the same set of witnesses used to discredit Modi were disbelieved by the SIT itself as most of them were awarded good post-retirement assignments by the chief minister.
Similarly, the amicus has refused to accept the SIT’S arguments with regard to the pending inquiries against Bhatt and the fact that he revealed the alleged utterances made by Modi after a gap of nine years. Bhatt’s explanation that he was an intelligence officer and would make a statement only when he was under a legal obligation, is ex-facie tenable, suggests Ramachandran. Then the amicus has laid out in detail the circumstances under which the meeting was called by Modi and has inferred that in the light of the given facts, it would not be proper to disbelieve Bhatt at this stage of the probe itself.
He has emphasised upon the presence of two ministers unconnected with the home portfolio in a police control room as an incriminating fact that further lends credence to the allegation of a larger conspiracy behind the riots. He has contended that what the law requires is the existence of some material that supports the allegation made by a complainant to initiate criminal proceedings and suggested that the case against Modi has passed this test and by not acting as per law, the SIT has in a way prejudged the case in favour of Modi.
Sanjiv Bhatt’s claim about CM’s order to allow Hindus to vent anger must be tested in court, says Raju Ramachandran
The Supreme Court’s amicus curiae in the Zakia Jafri case concluded that Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi can be proceeded against for various offences during the 2002 riots, including promoting enmity among different groups.
On Monday, the Special Investigation Team appointed by the Supreme Court to probe the complaint that there had been official complicity in the violence which claimed the lives of more than 1,000 people, mostly Muslims, released all documents connected with the case to Ms. Jafri and her co-petitioner, Citizens for Justice and Peace. The papers — presented to the apex court at various stages and subsequently handed over to the trial court when it filed a closure report — ran into 20,000 pages, the CJP said, and included the SIT’s reports as well as the two reports of the amicus, Raju Ramachandran, filed in January and July 2011 in response to specific directions by the apex court.
Though sources had earlier briefed The Hindu on the broad contents of the amicus’ report, its text has only now been made public.
In his report, Mr. Ramachandran strongly disagreed with a key conclusion of the R.K. Raghavan-led SIT: that IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt was not present at a late-night meeting of top Gujarat cops held at the Chief Minister’s residence in the wake of the February 27, 2002 Godhra carnage.
It has been Mr. Bhatt’s claim — made in an affidavit before the apex court and in statements to the SIT and the amicus — that he was present at the meeting where Mr. Modi allegedly said Hindus must be allowed to carry out retaliatory violence against Muslims.
Mr. Ramachandran said there was no clinching material available in the pre-trial stage to disbelieve Mr. Bhatt, whose claim could be tested only in court. “Hence, it cannot be said, at this stage, that Shri Bhatt should be disbelieved and no further proceedings should be taken against Shri Modi.”
Significantly, the amicus was of the view that in itself Mr. Modi’s alleged statement was an offence under the law and he could be prosecuted under various Sections of the IPC: “In my opinion, the offences which can be made out against Shri Modi, at this prima facie stage, are offences, inter alia, under Sections 153 A (1) (a) & (b) (statements promoting enmity between communities), 153B(1) (c) (imputations and assertions prejudicial to national interest), 166 (public servant disobeying a direction of the law with intent to cause injury) and 505 (2) (statements conducing to public mischief) of the IPC.
In its reports, the SIT had dismissed Mr. Bhatt as an unreliable witness on several grounds: He had been silent for nine years; he had “an axe to grind” against the State; his language on what Mr. Modi said was not exact; he had tried to tutor witnesses; and his claims about attending a meeting called by Mr. Modi for 10. 30 a.m. on February 28, 2002 had been belied by his call records which showed he was in Ahmedabad at that time (Mr. Bhatt told The Hindu, two meetings took place on February 28, 2002, one in the forenoon and the other in the afternoon).
The SIT also said Mr. Bhatt’s presence at the February 27 meeting had not been corroborated by other participants.
In his final report, the amicus, however, said: “The stage for believing or disbelieving a witness arises after trial i.e. once the entire evidence is placed before the court for its consideration. It would not be correct to conclude, at this stage, that Shri Bhatt should be completely disbelieved unless there is clinching material available to the contrary…”
Further, “the question whether Shri Bhatt was present at the meeting … and whether Mr. Modi had indeed made such a statement, can only be decided by a court of law …”
In Mr. Ramachandran’s view, two specific allegations in Ms. Jafri’s omnibus complaint, were very serious: Mr. Modi’s instructions to police officials at the February 27, 2002 meeting. And, secondly, the positioning of two cabinet ministers at the State and Ahmedabad city police control rooms during the anti-Muslim violence.
The amicus contested the grounds laid out by the SIT for disregarding Mr. Bhatt’s testimony. He said though he was conscious that Mr. Bhatt had not behaved like “a detached police officer” and had actively strategised with others, he was of the opinion that this background did not detract from Mr. Bhatt’s testimony: “In my opinion, despite the aforesaid background, it does not appear very likely that a serving police officer would make such a serious allegation against Mr. Modi, the Chief Minister of the State, without some basis. There is no documentary material of any nature whatsoever which can establish that Shri Bhatt was not present in the meeting on 27.02.2002.”
Mr. Ramachandran pointed out that the SIT had chosen to believe the words of senior officers despite acknowledging in its preliminary report that they could not be relied upon. According to the SIT, some of the officers had long retired and claimed loss of memory as they did not want to get into controversy. Some others had received good post-retirement benefits and felt obliged to the “present Chief Minister and therefore their testimony lacks credibility.”
Mr. Ramachandran, then, went on to state why, in his opinion, Mr. Bhatt could have attended the crucial meeting. Two senior Intelligence officers of the time, IB chief G.C. Raiger and Deputy Commissioner (Political and Communal) P.C. Upadhyay were both on leave on February 27, 2002. Mr. Raiger had said that Mr. Bhatt had accompanied him in the past to meetings called by Mr. Modi, though he would stand outside with files: “Thus it is quite possible that Shri Bhatt was directed to attend the meeting on 27.02.2002 at the residence of the Chief Minister. The phone call records do not contradict the statement given by Shri Bhatt to the SIT. Considering the important and emergent nature of the meeting, the relative “juniority” of Shri Bhatt need not have come in the way of his attending the meeting … the context (was) of an emergency meeting called at short notice in response to an escalating situation …”
In its preliminary report, the SIT had remarked negatively on the placement of two ministers I.K. Jadeja and Ashok Bhatt, in the control rooms, saying “there is every likelihood that this (their presence) had at least his (Mr. Modi’s) tacit approval. However, the investigation team held subsequently that the presence of Mr. Bhatt (who has since passed away) could not be established. The SIT also came to the conclusion that the minister/ministers did not interfere in any manner with the functioning of the police.
The amicus disputed the SIT’s changed version on Minister Ashok Bhatt’s presence and pointed out that the SIT’s first report was based on Mr. Bhatt’s own statement that he had visited the control room on February 28, 2002.
He also argued that the ministers’ very presence at the control rooms could have influenced senior police officials, and this aspect needed examination during the trial: “However, there is the possibility that the very presence of these 2 Ministers had a dampening effect on the senior police officials, i.e. the DGP and the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, if indeed, Shri Modi had made a statement (as alleged) the previous night. This is again one of the circumstances which can be taken into account and examined during the course of the trial.”
Mr. Ramachandran said though there was “absence of material” to indicate that the two ministers had acted on Mr. Modi’s alleged anti-Muslim instructions of February 27, 2002, “the very presence of political personalities unconnected with the Home Portfolio at the Police Control Rooms is circumstantial evidence of the Chief Minister directing, requesting or allowing them to be present. As already noted, the Chairman, SIT himself found that their positioning in the Police Control Rooms had, at least, the Chief Minister’s ‘tacit approval’.”
The amicus, however, agreed with the SIT on a few of its findings. He accepted the SIT’s conclusion that Haren Pandya could not have been present at the February 27 meeting. He also accepted the SIT’s conclusion, “with regard to the steps taken by Chief Minister Shri Modi to control the riots in Ahmedabad.”
Prosecute Narendra Modi, amicus curiae told Supreme Court: Report
NDTV Correspondent | Updated: February 12, 2012 10:18 IST
Amid reports that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) set up by the Supreme Court to investigate the 2002 Gujarat riots cases has given Chief Minister Narendra Modi a clean chit on the grounds that there was no prosecutable evidence against him, news magazine Tehelka has claimed Raju Ramachandran, the amicus curiae in the case, in his report given to the top court in May last year recommended that Mr Modi should be prosecuted.
According to Tehelka, Mr Ramachandran, in his report, has said that it is unreasonable on part of the special probe team to disbelieve what suspended IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt told the panel. Mr Bhatt, in an affidavit before the Supreme Court, had alleged that Mr Modi, during a meeting on February 27, 2002, instructed top police officials of the state to allow the Hindus to vent their anger after the Godhra train burning incident. He had deposed before the Commission in May last year.
The amicus curiae’s report also says that contrary to the probe panel’s stance, facts are seemingly loaded in Mr Bhatt’s favour and that Mr Bhatt is a crucial witness whose statement is a direct piece of evidence. Mr Bhatt was posted as the Deputy Commissioner of Intelligence with the State Intelligence Bureau (SIB) from 1999 to 2002.
Hillele 