New Delhi, September 13: In what is being seen as a breather to Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, the Supreme Court on Monday refused to pass any order on his alleged inaction to contain the 2002 Gujarat riots and referred the matter back to the trial court in Ahmedabad for a decision.
The Supreme Court also observed that it will no longer monitor the probe now while hearing a petition filed by former Congress MP Ehsaan Jafri’s widow Zakia Jafri alleging that Modi and 62 top government officials deliberately refused to take action to contain riots, triggered by the February 27, 2002 Godhra train carnage.
The BJP is seeing it as a victory but the Congress asserts it’s in no way a clean chit.
However, Zakia Jafri was surprised when the apex court refused to pass any order on Modi’s alleged inaction to contain the riots and referred the matter back to the trial court in Ahmedabad for a decision.
“I have been waiting with anticipation for the Supreme Court’s verdict. I thought I would be pleased after the court announces it’s decision but that isn’t so. The court has not taken the right decision,” said Zakia.
However, Teesta Setalvad and her NGO who fought the legal battle is interpreting the Supreme Court order as a victory.
“The Supreme Court order is far from a clean chit to Modi. We have confidence in the system in the country. The trial court in Gujarat works under the supervision of the Supreme Court, this trial will be monitored by the Supreme Court,” said Teesta.
The court in its order has directed the SIT report on Zakia’s complaint along with the amicus curies’ report to be forwarded to the trail court.
The trial court will now take cognisance of the complaint and decide if a case has to be conducted on the basis of the SIT report.
If for any reason the SIT believes that there is no evidence against Modi and others, then an opportunity will be given to Zakia to produce more evidence or oppose it.
The Gujarat Chief Minister sees Monday’s order as a relief for himself and tweeted: God is great.
Independent lawyers believe that this was the only way the court could have proceeded in the case. But for victims of the violence, divine intervention may now be needed to ensure justice.
–Agencies–