Former Supreme Court judge Justice PB Sawant, who conducted an inquiry into the 2002 Gujarat riots and found Chief Minister Narendra Modi guilty, has said that he does not agree with the report on the case submitted recently by the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT).
The SIT was asked to determine whether Mr Modi should be tried for his alleged role in the riots. In its report submitted to a Gujarat court last month, it gave a clean chit to the Chief Minister and ruled that there was no "prosecutable evidence" against him.
But Justice Sawant says the conclusions drawn by the SIT "are completely incorrect." "I don't agree with them," he told NDTV, adding that the findings of the probe panel are not binding on the court.
"It is for the people to compare both the reports and draw their own conclusions," he said. Justice Sawant had conducted an inquiry into the Gujarat riots in 2002 and had found Mr Modi responsible for the carnage. He had even recommended his prosecution.
Besides the SIT, the Supreme Court had also appointed senior advocate Raju Ramachandran to investigate allegations of Mr Modi's complicity in the riots. Mr Ramachandran submitted his report to the Supreme Court in February this year. But his findings differ from those of the SIT.
He said there appear to be enough grounds for offences to be made out against the Chief Minister. "The offences which can be made out against Shri Modi, at this prima facie stage" include "promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion and acts prejudicial to (the) maintenance of harmony," his report reads.
The amicus curiae (one who assists the court) has also said in his report that more attention should be paid to the claims of suspended police officer Sanjiv Bhatt, whose comments against the Chief Minister were dismissed by the SIT. Mr Bhatt claims that on February 27, 2002, hours after 58 passengers were set on fire in a train near the Godhra station, Mr Modi held a meeting at his residence with senior police officers and told them that Hindus should be allowed to "vent their anger."
Justice Sawant seconds that. "The genocide started after Narendra Modi instructed his ministers and top police officials against interfering with what people will be doing as a reaction to the Godhra incident," he said.
The SIT and Mr Ramachandran were both asked to study Mr Modi's role on the basis of a case filed by Zakia Jafri. Her husband and former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri was set on fire during the riots. Mrs Jafri has said that Mr Modi was among 63 people who colluded to prevent assistance to those being attacked in the riots.
She has alleged that Mr Modi and his administration did nothing to save Mr Jafri and 69 others at the Gulberg Society when rioters attacked them. She has claimed that her husband made repeated phone calls for help, even to the Chief Minister, but to no avail.
The SIT report claims that Congress leader could have provoked the rioters by firing on them.
On Monday, May 7, Ms Jafri was given a copy of the SIT closure report. But she has alleged that she has not been given all the documents, and at least 20 pages of the report are missing. She has also said that she will continue her legal battle to prove what she calls Mr Modi's complicity in the post-Godhra Gujarat riots.
In another stunning statement, the SIT has said that even if Mr Modi had told the police during the riots to allow the Hindus to vent their anger over the massacre of 56 kar sevaks in the Godhra train burning incident, the mere statement of those in the confines of a room does not constitute an offence. On this, the SIT seems to have based its report on public statements made by Mr Modi during the riots.
Around 1200 people lost their lives in the riots in 2002 in the state.
The SIT was asked to determine whether Mr Modi should be tried for his alleged role in the riots. In its report submitted to a Gujarat court last month, it gave a clean chit to the Chief Minister and ruled that there was no "prosecutable evidence" against him.
But Justice Sawant says the conclusions drawn by the SIT "are completely incorrect." "I don't agree with them," he told NDTV, adding that the findings of the probe panel are not binding on the court.
"It is for the people to compare both the reports and draw their own conclusions," he said. Justice Sawant had conducted an inquiry into the Gujarat riots in 2002 and had found Mr Modi responsible for the carnage. He had even recommended his prosecution.
Besides the SIT, the Supreme Court had also appointed senior advocate Raju Ramachandran to investigate allegations of Mr Modi's complicity in the riots. Mr Ramachandran submitted his report to the Supreme Court in February this year. But his findings differ from those of the SIT.
He said there appear to be enough grounds for offences to be made out against the Chief Minister. "The offences which can be made out against Shri Modi, at this prima facie stage" include "promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion and acts prejudicial to (the) maintenance of harmony," his report reads.
The amicus curiae (one who assists the court) has also said in his report that more attention should be paid to the claims of suspended police officer Sanjiv Bhatt, whose comments against the Chief Minister were dismissed by the SIT. Mr Bhatt claims that on February 27, 2002, hours after 58 passengers were set on fire in a train near the Godhra station, Mr Modi held a meeting at his residence with senior police officers and told them that Hindus should be allowed to "vent their anger."
Justice Sawant seconds that. "The genocide started after Narendra Modi instructed his ministers and top police officials against interfering with what people will be doing as a reaction to the Godhra incident," he said.
The SIT and Mr Ramachandran were both asked to study Mr Modi's role on the basis of a case filed by Zakia Jafri. Her husband and former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri was set on fire during the riots. Mrs Jafri has said that Mr Modi was among 63 people who colluded to prevent assistance to those being attacked in the riots.
She has alleged that Mr Modi and his administration did nothing to save Mr Jafri and 69 others at the Gulberg Society when rioters attacked them. She has claimed that her husband made repeated phone calls for help, even to the Chief Minister, but to no avail.
The SIT report claims that Congress leader could have provoked the rioters by firing on them.
On Monday, May 7, Ms Jafri was given a copy of the SIT closure report. But she has alleged that she has not been given all the documents, and at least 20 pages of the report are missing. She has also said that she will continue her legal battle to prove what she calls Mr Modi's complicity in the post-Godhra Gujarat riots.
In another stunning statement, the SIT has said that even if Mr Modi had told the police during the riots to allow the Hindus to vent their anger over the massacre of 56 kar sevaks in the Godhra train burning incident, the mere statement of those in the confines of a room does not constitute an offence. On this, the SIT seems to have based its report on public statements made by Mr Modi during the riots.
Around 1200 people lost their lives in the riots in 2002 in the state.
Track Latest News Live on NDTV.com and get news updates from India and around the world
