New Delhi, April 07: The trials in the 2002 Gujarat riot cases have once again come under a cloud and may hit another roadblock.
In view of doubts raised on the impartiality of some officers associated with the Special Investigation Team ( SIT), the Supreme Court on Tuesday said it will consider whether to stay the trials after hearing the state government and other interested parties on April 19.
The court further said IPS officers Geeta Johri and Shivanand Jha should keep away from the proceedings in the meantime.
“ For the time being, we request the SIT chairman to ensure that Geeta Johri and Shivanand Jha are not associated with any ongoing trial,” the bench of justices D. K. Jain, P. Sathasivam and Aftab Alam said.
The trials in the Gujarat riots cases, which were stayed by the Supreme Court in 2003, had started after a go- ahead from the court last year. But activists are crying foul and have levelled allegations against the SIT members.
Some activists, including one Devendrabhai N. Pathak, had filed a petition alleging that the SIT had not touched the state actors and policemen involved in the cases. They sought stay on the trials of 10 cases monitored by the SIT and also transfer of the probe to an independent agency ( the CBI).
The court, which had sought a response from the SIT on certain specific charges, indicated that it was going to stay the trials as it was not satisfied with the reply.
The bench, however, did not pass any order to that effect after the Narendra Modi government opposed a stay without properly hearing it.
Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, appearing on behalf of the state government, said it had no role in constituting the SIT and had in fact, opposed it. But the SC went ahead and constituted it. Now that chargesheets have been filed and trial has begun, the SC shouldn’t intervene, he said.
Amicus curiae Harish Salve, who has been assisting the court in the matter, also tried to dissuade the court from taking a decision to stay the trials without hearing the state government. He pointed out that evidence was lost when the trial was stayed for over five years and the accused were granted bail.
“ You mean to say miscarriage of justice was caused under the aegis of this court?” Justice Alam asked.
Salve said he wanted to seek some more clarifications from the petitioners on the charges against the SIT. “ For the moment, let the matter lie
where it is,” he added.
Senior counsel Ram Jethmalani supported Rohtagi’s contention.
Appearing for an MLA who, along with Modi, was named among the 63 people in the complaint of Jakia Jafri, Jethmalani said the proceedings were not happening according to rules.
Quoting a jurist, he said: “ Justice is not a layman’s search for truth. Justice is a game played according to rules.” This game is not being played according to rules, he said.
Solicitor- general and amicus curiae in the case Gopal Subramanium, on the other hand, sought a stay on the trials and contended that the integrity of the SIT officers had come under question.
On this, Jethmalani hit back saying he ( Subramanium) should have had more experience of the trial. “ All the accused will be acquitted if the investigators are not honest,’’ he said.
Rohatgi said the petitioners were against the SIT because some reports by it had castigated them for fabricating evidence.
He said 1,061 witnesses were examined and only about 110 had turned hostile.
Earlier, the court had almost decided to stay the trials after noting that the SIT’s response to the allegations was not satisfactory.
Justice Alam noted that SIT had not taken a stand on the value of the revelations made in a sting operation by Tehelka . While one of the officers had brushed aside the revelations, the other had not.
—Agencies