Their testimonies have been crucial in exposing state complicity, resisting the erasure of history, and demanding accountability. Yet, their pursuit of justice has been met with intimidation, legal obstruction, and, in some cases, criminalisation. Across these three instances, a grim pattern emerges: the deliberate targeting of women, the systemic failure of institutions meant to protect them, and the extraordinary resilience with which they have fought back.

1984 anti-Sikh pogrom: Survivors bore became the voice of the battle for justice

The anti-Sikh riots of 1984 resulted in the targeted killings of close to 3,000 Sikh men in Delhi alone though the all-India figures are higher. The targeted violence left behind a generation of widows who not only survived brutal gendered violence at the time, but also bore the burden of documenting the atrocities and seeking justice for over three decades. These women, who were often left to fend for themselves by a cruel state apparatus, after witnessing the murders of their male relatives, rose out of the tragedy to become among the strongest voices to reclaim memory and assert the cries for justice. It was their collective voice that ensured that the history of the massacres was not erased. Their testimonies and persistent legal battles formed the backbone of efforts to hold the perpetrators accountable.

The Sikh women who survived the 1984 riots had to overcome the dual trauma of sexual violence and the loss of their families. Many were raped in front of their own children, while others were kidnapped and tortured for days. Their homes were looted and burned, leaving them homeless and destitute. The legal system and government, rather than offering justice, attempted to silence them through intimidation and bureaucratic neglect. Yet, these women refused to let the world forget what had happened.

Women like Nirpreet Kaur, who was 16 when she witnessed her father being burned alive, dedicated their lives to collecting evidence, documenting survivor testimonies, and ensuring that cases against the perpetrators remained alive. Kaur, despite facing police torture, years of imprisonment under false charges, and the loss of two husbands, continued to fight for justice. She meticulously gathered witness statements, encouraged other widows to testify, and resisted repeated offers of bribes and compensation meant to buy her silence.

Similarly, many widows who had lost their husbands and sons stood as the primary eyewitnesses in court. Their testimonies were critical in exposing the involvement of political leaders who had orchestrated the violence. Women who had lost everything, such as Pappi Kaur, who saw 11 of her male relatives burned alive, and Bhaagi Kaur, who was left to raise her children in abject poverty, took the stand despite threats and intimidation. Their courage ensured that the narratives of rape, murder, and destruction remained central to the legal battle.

The state machinery worked relentlessly to suppress the voices of Sikh women. Many were offered financial compensation to withdraw their cases, while others faced direct threats to their lives and families. Witness protection was virtually non-existent, with police officers themselves leaking information to the accused. In one instance, police allegedly warned a witness that her children would be killed if she continued to testify.

Despite these threats, Sikh women continued to push for legal accountability. They filed affidavits, attended court hearings, and worked with human rights lawyers to challenge the impunity granted to perpetrators. Their efforts led to the reopening of cases, the formation of commissions, and, after decades of struggle, the eventual conviction of senior politicians such as Sajjan Kumar in 2018.

The importance of women’s testimonies in the Sikh pogrom

The testimonies of Sikh women were instrumental in revealing the premeditated nature of the violence. Unlike the state’s claim that the riots were spontaneous, these women detailed how mobs were armed with chemicals, iron rods, and torches; how police officers either stood by or actively participated; and how political leaders directed the killings. Their statements also underscored the targeted sexual violence inflicted on Sikh women as a means of communal humiliation.

At the time, after the mob set Darshan Kaur’s husband ablaze, she gathered her three children, the youngest just 15 days old, and ran. In the frenzy, the baby slipped from 19-year-old Darshan’s hands. But there was no time to stop. For the next three days, she and the remaining two children ran from the police station to gurudwara searching for a safe place. Yet she has not given up and remains the haunting yet strong figure for justice for the survivors of 1984.

The fight for justice was long and arduous. It took 26 years for the trial of Sajjan Kumar to even begin, and even then, convictions came only after relentless pressure from survivors like Nirpreet Kaur. Many Sikh widows, facing extreme poverty, had to make painful choices—some accepted financial compensation in lieu of pursuing legal battles, while others withdrew their cases due to fear. Yet, those who persisted forced the legal system to reckon with the atrocities committed in 1984.

Some women were denied even dignified rehabilitation. There is Satpal Kaur, 13 years old and the eldest of four girl survivors at the time. Suddenly from living a normal middle-class life, on November 1, 1984 everything changed. Four members of their family, their father, mother, brother and uncle, were killed and only the four sisters were left alive. As the eldest, Satpal Kaur, was 13 and the youngest girl only four years old at the time, and finally it was Advocate HS Phoolka who helped the legal battle for custody of the girls that was given to the grandfather. Another story about 21 widows, all from one family, who lived in the Sagarpur area of West Delhi near the Delhi Cantonment. On November 1, 1984 a resident of the area suggested that the male members of the family should all take shelter in a tube well room located near their house. The men were locked up in the room ostensibly to save their lives but later the mob was informed of their whereabouts. They came and set fire to the room, roasting the men alive. The youngest of these 21 widows, Manjit Kaur, was just 20 years old and had only been married for two years when tragedy struck. She had no children and after this traumatic incident, did not marry again. For the two and a half decades thereafter, she tried to get a government job to no avail.

The Sikh women who survived the 1984 riots not only bore the weight of personal tragedy but also became the torchbearers of justice. Their documentation of crimes, unwavering testimonies, and refusal to be silenced ensured that the massacre was not forgotten. Though justice came late and in fragments, their fight set a precedent for future struggles against state-sponsored violence. Their resilience remains a powerful testament to the strength of survivors who refuse to let history be rewritten by those in power.

Gujarat 2002: Testifying against unimaginable horror

The Gujarat riots of 2002 marked one of the darkest chapters of communal violence in India. Amidst the widespread bloodshed, women not only bore the brunt of gendered violence but also led the struggle for accountability, documenting atrocities and seeking justice. These women, many of them victims themselves, stood against systemic apathy and intimidation to ensure that the truth was recorded and the perpetrators were held accountable. Their determination played a crucial role in exposing the extent of sexual violence during the riots, despite efforts to erase or suppress these accounts from official records. In one of its shining moments the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) took suo moto action in Gujarat 2002. The seminal report followed by path-breaking interventions in the Supreme Court of India ensured, in some measure, that other institutions responded with some seriousness.

The gendered violence during the Gujarat riots was unparalleled in its brutality. Women were raped, mutilated, and killed, often in broad daylight; their bodies used as battlegrounds for communal hatred. The systemic nature of these crimes was evident in the way women were specifically targeted, often in public settings, as a means of humiliating the entire community. Survivors, however, refused to let these crimes be erased from history. According to officially admitted records, documented by Citizens for Justice and Peace, 97 women eye-witnesses played a critical role in criminal trials related to the massacres. Despite immense pressure, intimidation, and threats, they deposed before courts, describing the horrifying acts of sexual violence and targeted attacks in explicit detail. State Intelligence Bureau figures admitted to 99 cases of gendered violence though citizen’s efforts put the figure at twice the number.

In cases such as the Naroda Patiya massacre, where over 110 people were killed, and the Gulberg Society massacre, where at least 69 lives were lost, women testified about the gruesome acts of violence they witnessed or endured. These testimonies included accounts of gang rape, public stripping, and the killing of pregnant women and infants. Women described how mobs used iron rods, swords, and petrol bombs to attack them, often displaying a sadistic violent brutality in each of the attacks. The testimonies highlighted the premeditated nature of the mob violence as also the utter complicity of the state, from local police to other authorities.

The struggle to document sexual violence was particularly difficult, as official records often downplayed or omitted these accounts. Women survivors and activists persisted, ensuring that evidence of rape and brutalisation was included in legal proceedings and public records. Forensic reports were often manipulated or withheld, and in many cases, there was an absence of medical documentation due to the fear instilled in victims and their families. Despite these hurdles, women continued to speak out, determined to create a historical record that could not be erased.

Women who stepped forward to testify faced relentless harassment. Many were forced to relocate multiple times due to threats from the accused and their supporters. In some cases, male relatives were pressured to withdraw cases or dissuade women from testifying. Police officers and local authorities often refused to file FIRs or conducted deliberately flawed investigations, further victimising survivors. Women were denied legal representation, forced to relive their trauma in hostile courtrooms, and subjected to humiliating questioning by defence lawyers who sought to discredit their accounts.

Among those who played a pivotal role in this documentation were women like Bilkis Bano and Zakia Jafri, who recently passed away. As survivors, they turned their personal tragedies into a relentless pursuit of justice, ensuring that accounts of gendered violence were not buried under political pressure. Bilkis Bano’s testimony became instrumental in exposing the extent of sexual violence during the riots, as she recounted how she was gang-raped while her family members, including her infant daughter, were murdered. Zakia Jafri, despite losing her husband, former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri, in the Gulberg Society massacre, fought for years to hold state officials accountable for their complicity in the violence. Their struggles, alongside those of many other unnamed women, challenged state complicity and legal apathy, fighting in courts for years to establish the truth. CJP was among the leading groups that persisted over two decades with legal aid for survivors like Zakia Jafri, Rupa Mody, Saira Sandhi (Gulberg case), Bashirabi and others (Sardarpura case) and Farida bano, Shakila Bano and others in the Naroda Patiya case.

Despite multiple attempts to derail these cases, the persistence of women survivors led to rare convictions in some instances. The Supreme Court eventually intervened to move key cases, including the Best Bakery case, outside Gujarat due to concerns over bias and threats to witnesses. This was a direct result of the relentless efforts of women who refused to back down despite knowing the risks involved.

The importance of women’s testimonies in the Gujarat riots

The documentation of violence by women played a crucial role in countering the official narrative that sought to dismiss or minimise the scale of gendered atrocities. In many cases, the state machinery attempted to frame the violence as spontaneous riots rather than a coordinated attack. Women’s testimonies dismantled this argument by providing detailed accounts of how mobs were armed, how attacks were systematically carried out, and how law enforcement agencies either stood by or actively participated in the violence.

The legal battle that followed the riots was long and fraught with challenges. The initial investigations were deliberately botched, with crucial evidence being destroyed or tampered with. Public prosecutors appointed by the state were often affiliated with the ruling party and acted in ways that favoured the accused. Women survivors, however, continued to file petitions, demand re-investigations, and push for special hearings. Their relentless legal advocacy forced the courts to acknowledge the specific targeting of women during the riots and set legal precedents for future cases of communal violence.

One of the most significant impacts of women’s documentation efforts was the recognition of sexual violence as a weapon of communal conflict. Their testimonies became part of a larger movement that called for reforms in how gender-based violence was prosecuted in mass crimes. Women’s organisations, both within and outside Gujarat, used these testimonies to demand accountability at national and international levels, submitting reports to bodies such as the United Nations and the Supreme Court.

The Gujarat riots of 2002 showcased the brutalisation of women, but they also highlighted their resilience. In the face of unspeakable horrors, women survivors fought relentlessly, not just for their own justice but for a historical record that would not allow their suffering to be forgotten. Their testimonies and legal battles remain a testament to the power of resistance, ensuring that gendered violence in communal conflicts does not fade into obscurity. The documentation of these crimes by women survivors forced India’s legal system to confront the role of sexual violence in communal conflicts and laid the groundwork for future legal battles. Their fight continues to inspire generations to confront hate with courage and demand accountability, even against the most formidable adversaries.

Delhi 2020: The weaponisation of the state against women

The communal violence that unfolded in northeast Delhi between February 23 and 26, 2020, was not a spontaneous riot but an orchestrated attack. The violence, which resulted in the deaths of 53 people—40 of them Muslim—was a brutal response to the anti-CAA protests that had mobilised thousands across the country, led significantly by Muslim women. While the state and the media sought to rewrite the narrative, blaming protestors for the violence, women who had witnessed and experienced the attacks fought to document the truth and seek justice. Unlike past instances of communal violence, where survivors slowly found avenues for legal battles, the women of the Delhi riots faced an unprecedented challenge: criminalisation, incarceration, and continued suppression by the state.

The anti-CAA protests, particularly the Shaheen Bagh movement, symbolised peaceful resistance led by Muslim women. However, these women soon became targets. In Jaffrabad, one of the protest sites, women were on the frontlines, protesting discriminatory citizenship laws when mobs, emboldened by political leaders’ inflammatory speeches, launched targeted attacks. Homes and shops were torched, mosques vandalised, and people lynched. Women who led protests, like Ishrat Jahan, Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, Safoora Zargar, and Gulfisha Fatima were arrested under draconian laws, accused of conspiring to incite the violence they had, in reality, been victims of.

Unlike previous instances of communal violence, where women fought prolonged legal battles for justice, in Delhi, they were pre-emptively branded as conspirators and jailed. Gulfisha Fatima, an MBA graduate and grassroots activist, was arrested under FIR 48, initially granted bail, only to be re-arrested under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), ensuring her prolonged incarceration. To date, she remains in jail, a stark reminder of how the state weaponised the legal system against Muslim women who dared to resist. Gulfisha remains under arrest as an undertrial, without bail to date, five years later.

Similarly, Safoora Zargar, arrested while pregnant, was accused of being a key conspirator despite a lack of evidence. Ishrat Jahan, a former municipal councillor, was denied bail for years, and when granted, it was seen as an exception rather than a norm. Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal, founding members of Pinjra Tod, were arrested and re-arrested on multiple charges, illustrating the state’s relentless pursuit of women activists.

Even those who weren’t arrested faced systemic suppression. Police dismissed the testimonies of women who had lost family members and refused to investigate cases that implicated Hindutva extremists. In courts, victims found their cases delayed indefinitely, while those accused of instigating the riots walked free. The judiciary, instead of upholding justice, repeatedly sided with the state’s narrative, making it nearly impossible for Muslim women to seek legal redress.

The importance of women’s testimonies in countering false narratives

The role of women in documenting the 2020 Delhi riots goes beyond legal battles—it is about preserving the truth against deliberate erasure. The mainstream narrative continues to blame Muslim activists for the violence, while the actual instigators remain shielded by the state. The testimonies, photographs, and first-hand accounts collected by women protestors and survivors challenge this state-sponsored narrative and ensure that the history of these attacks is not rewritten.

In contrast to past instances of communal violence, where survivors eventually found some measure of justice after decades of struggle, the women of the Delhi riots face an ongoing battle where justice remains entirely out of reach. With Gulfisha Fatima still in jail after four years and many others continuing to fight baseless charges, their struggle is far from over. Their resistance, however, ensures that their stories remain alive, refusing to let the truth be buried under propaganda and state repression.

The women of the 2020 Delhi riots fought not just against targeted violence but against a state determined to criminalise their very existence. Their documentation of the attacks, their refusal to remain silent, and their continued struggle for justice in the face of legal persecution exemplify resilience. In a system that punishes those who seek accountability, their fight is one for survival, memory, and truth. Their resistance stands as a testament to the unyielding spirit of women who refuse to let history be rewritten by those in power.

Women and their unyielding fight for truth

Women who have fought for justice in the aftermath of communal violence in India have done so against overwhelming odds. They have defied a state machinery that actively seeks to erase their suffering, a legal system designed to delay and deny, and a society that too often treats them as collateral damage. Their fight has not only been about personal justice but about exposing the larger structures of power that enable such violence.

Despite decades of struggle, justice remains a distant dream. In Gujarat, where a handful of convictions took place, the state machinery ensured that most perpetrators walked free. In 1984, justice came too late for many survivors, with key political figures being convicted only after decades of relentless legal battles. And in Delhi, justice is yet to arrive—Muslim women who dared to protest against discriminatory laws remain imprisoned while the instigators of violence roam free.

The stories of these women force us to confront an uncomfortable truth: the state is not merely a bystander in communal violence but an active participant, shielding perpetrators and punishing those who seek accountability. Their resilience in the face of such repression is a testament to their courage. But their continued struggle also serves as an indictment of a system that has failed them at every level. This International Women’s Day, their fight must not only be remembered but actively supported—for justice, for truth, and for the right to resist oppression without fear.

Related:

This women’s day CJP celebrates all women in resistance

The women of CJP: Resilient and resolute in their mission to advocate for the rights of all and counter prejudice

Oh, what a year to be a woman! IWD 2023: CJP lists some advocates who paved the way for women’s rights

Wounds still linger

Remembering 1984

The post Surviving Communal Wrath: Women who have defied the silence, demanded accountability from the state appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a landmark judgment, the bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that the eleven convicts (who were given remission) have to report back to the jail authorities within two weeks and have to continue to remain in jail. The bench clearly stated that the Gujarat government was not empowered to pass the remission order, since the appropriate government entitled to pass orders of remission was the government of the State where the trial had taken place; in this particular case, it was the Government of Maharashtra and not that of Gujarat, which was the competent authority, to even consider remission

The 251-pages judgment, is bound to have wide ranging repercussions; a key para states, “On competence of Gujarat government to pass remission orders, it is apparent that appropriate government had to take permission of the court before passing remission orders. This means that place of occurrence or place of imprisonment of convicts are not relevant for remission. The definition of appropriate government is otherwise. The intention of the government is that the State under whom the convict was tried and sentenced was the appropriate government. This places emphasis on the place of trial and rather than where the crime took place,”

The judges also came down heavily on the Gujarat Government: stating that it was complicit in the crime for not filing a review plea against the May 2022 judgment and instead acting in tandem with the convicts and usurping the Maharashtra government’s jurisdiction to grant remission to convicts. “It was the State of Maharashtra who could have only passed the remission orders respondent no 3 surreptitiously filed the plea before the Supreme Court. Taking advantage of May 13, 2022 order of this Court, other convicts also filed remission applications and the Gujarat government passed remission orders…Gujarat was complicit and acted in tandem with respondent no. 3 in this case. This Court was misled by suppressing facts. Use of power by Gujarat was only a usurpation of power by the State,”

In great detail, the judgement clearly exposed all the fraudulent tactics the convicts used, as well as how Gujarat’s government acted in tandem with them, in securing their un-merited and premature release from prison via reduction of sentences through a sham process of remission, albeit under the erroneous directions from the Supreme Court itself. The Court also came down strongly on one of the convicts, Radhyesham, for playing fraud upon the Court by suppressing material facts and getting a favourable order from the top court in May 2022 which eventually led to the release of all the eleven convicts. It unequivocally stated that the May 2022 judgment was obtained by fraud and therefore not good in law.

In order to understand a bit of what Bilkis has been going through, it is important to revisit that horrendous tragedy of almost twenty -two years ago. Following the burning of the S-6 compartment and tragic death of 59 persons (mainly ‘kar sevaks’) on 27 February 2002, all hell broke loose, the next day, in several parts of Gujarat. Sensing trouble, a group of seventeen persons fled their native village of Randhikpur in Dahod district. The group consisted of Bilkis, her three-year-old daughter Saleha, her mother and fourteen others. They took refuge in another village Chhaparvad hoping they would be safe there. On March 3, however, they were attacked by about 20-30 people armed with sickles, swords, and sticks. Among the attackers were the eleven accused men (those currently on remission). Bilkis, her mother, and three other women were raped and brutally assaulted. Of the seventeen Muslims, eight were found dead, six were missing. Only Bilkis, a man, and a three-year-old child survived the attack. Bilkis was unconscious for at least three hours; after she regained consciousness, she borrowed some clothes from an Adivasi woman made her way to the Limkheda police station to register a complaint. The Head Constable there, according to the CBI, “suppressed material facts and wrote a distorted and truncated version of Bilkis’ complaint”.

Since then, Bilkis has relived the horror of that tragedy several times, as she unwaveringly, but with great pain, narrates the brutality that she was subject to. She says, “All the 4 men of my family were killed brutally. The women were stripped naked and raped by many men. They caught me top. My 3-year-old daughter, Saleha, was in my arms. They snatched her and threw her into the air with all their might. My heart broke as her little head shattered on the rocks. Four men caught me by the arms and legs and many others entered me one by one. When satisfying their lust, they kicked me and beat my head with a rod. Assuming that I was dead they threw me into the bushes. Four or five hours later I regained my consciousness. I searched for some rags to cover my body, but couldn’t find any. I spent a day and a half on a hilltop without food or water. I longed for death. Finally, I managed to find a tribal colony. Declaring myself as a Hindu I sought shelter there. The men who attacked us used foul language; I can’t repeat it ever. In front of me they killed my mother, sister and 12 other relatives. While raping and killing us, they were shouting sexual abuses. I could not even tell them that I was five months pregnant because their feet were on my mouth and neck. I have known the men who raped me for many years. We sold them milk. They were our customers. If they had any shame, they would not have done this to me. How can I forgive them?”

Any lesser mortal would have given up; but not Bilkis Bano! With her husband Yakub Rasool (who was away from home when home when violence broke out) who has stood by her side, through thick and thin, she has been able to weather all storms! At first, Bilkis could hardly open her mouth. With the help of some concerned citizens, she slowly regained her confidence and realised that she was the key witness in bringing the perpetrators of this heinous crime to book. She plucked up courage and began a painful struggle for truth and justice.  She knew who the murderers and the rapists were, and she courageously identified them. The journey all along was fraught with obstacles and hostilities; threats and intimidation. The Gujarat Government, with Narendra Modi at the helm, was obviously supportive of the criminals who raped her and killed her family members. The FIR was manipulated; the medical reports and post-mortem of the bodies omitted significant details; evidence was destroyed, since all the dead were buried by the police themselves; the body of her three-year-old disappeared. The prosecution sided with the accused; the lower court which heard her case upheld all the falsehood and the lies. The case was finally closed!

Bilkis however, persisted; her pursuit for truth and justice was relentless. The then National Human Rights Commission (a far cry from the NHRC of today, which is totally spineless, which blatantly supports the crimes of the regime) received her petition and conducted its own independent inquiry and totally supported her case. She then appealed to the Supreme Court. In 2004, the case was reopened and referred to the CBI. Twelve of the twenty accused were arrested in 2004 and the trial began in Ahmedabad. However, after Bilkis expressed grave apprehensions that witnesses could be harmed and the evidence collected by the CBI tampered with, the Supreme Court transferred the case to Mumbai. Bilkis was the only direct eye-witness. She was constantly under threat.  For her own safety, she had to move from one place to another. In 2008, the Special Court sentenced eleven accused (one died during the trial) to life imprisonment on the charges of conspiring to rape a pregnant woman, murder and unlawful assembly under the Indian Penal Code. The police and the doctors who were accused of being complicit in fudging reports were exonerated; but in May 2017, on an appeal from the CBI, the Bombay High Court upheld the sentencing and also found the doctors and police guilty. One of the judges, Judge Salvi termed Bilkis’ “courageous deposition as the turning point in the case.” In 2019, the Supreme Court awarded compensation of Rs 50 lakh to Bilkis — the first such order in a case related to the 2002 riots. The bench of the then, Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, and Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna stated, “It is very apparent that what should not have happened has happened and the state has to give compensation.” 

Sadly, on Independence Day 2022, the nation was in for a terrible shock when those who were imprisoned were set free by the Gujarat Government! The convicts set free were, Jaswant Nai, Govind Nai, Shailesh Bhatt, Radhyesham Shah, Bipin Chandra Joshi, Kesarbhai Vohania, Pradeep Mordhiya, Bakabhai Vohania, Rajubhai Soni, Mitesh Bhatt and Ramesh Chandana. The moment they came out of prison, the rapists and the murderers, were felicitated by the ‘hindutva’ brigade with ladoos and garlands. Significantly, the moment their remission order was received, they were out of the gates of the prison. (For human rights defenders and others illegally incarcerated, even after the release or bail order is received by the jail authorities, it takes hours and even several days, for them to come out of prison!) Besides, the convicts, all seemed to have enjoyed their ‘sentence’ – fatted, well-dressed and groomed. Most prisoners in India are certainly not as privileged as these henchmen of ‘hindutva’. It was back to square one for Bilkis, her kith and kin, for the many victim survivors of the Gujarat Carnage, for human rights defenders and others who have given up so much for these victim survivors) and for the many millions of others.

The world and all citizens who care for truth and justice, were outraged at the fact that the eleven criminals had their sentences remitted. For such a ghastly crime, this ‘remission’ is just not given! Officialdom tried to justify this act: with flimsy and unacceptable reasons. Social media went viral, with people from all walks of life coming together to express condemnation. Leading newspapers (nationally and internationally) had editorials and op-eds clearly taking a stand against this remission. Interestingly, even some of the ‘godified’ electronic media, named the RSS and the VHP in their reportage. Powerful statements of condemnation came in from eminent citizens, intellectuals, politicians, activists and others from across the board. The voice of all was loud and clear: this act is a blatant travesty of justice.

On August 17, 2022, Bilkis stated, “Two days ago on August 15, 2022 the trauma of the past 20 years washed over me again. When I heard that the 11 convicted men who devastated my family and my life, and took from me my 3-year-old daughter, had walked free, I was bereft of words. I am still numb. Today I can only say this- how can justice for any woman end like this? I trusted the highest courts in our land. I trusted the system, and I was learning slowly to live with my trauma. The release of these convicts has taken from me my peace and shaken my faith in justice. My sorrow and my wavering faith is not for myself alone but for every woman who is struggling for justice in courts. No one enquired about my safety and well-being, before taking such a big and unjust decision. I appeal to the Gujarat Government, please undo this harm. Give me back my right to live without fear and in peace. Please ensure that my family and I are kept safe.”

Fortunately, women stalwarts like CPI(M) leader and activist Subhashini Ali, former professor Roop Rekha Verma and journalist Revati Laul who took up cudgels on behalf of Bilkis. They jointly filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the Gujarat government’s remission and release order; others like TMC leader Mahua Moitra and former IPS officer Meeran Chadha also joined in. Besides there was a whole battery of committed and brilliant lawyers (mainly women) who were convinced that the cause of truth and justice had to triumph for Bilkis, for the women of India and ultimately, for the future of the country! For more than sixteen months, Bilkis waited patiently, till her vindication, with the path breaking verdict of 8 January 2024!

The convicts have to return to jail as per the Court order! That is clear! According to media reports, most of them have ‘vanished into thin air’; if they are not back in jail in two weeks, the Apex Court may have to charge and imprison those responsible for the remission order (including key people from the Gujarat and Central Governments)! On the question of sending the convicts back to the jail, the Court held that rule of law has to prevail over the liberty of the convicts. The Court stated, “Rule of law does not mean protection to a fortunate few. In ADM Jabalpur, Justice Khanna had said rule of law is the antithesis to arbitrariness. We hold justice cannot be done without adherence to the rule of law,”. Further stating, “We hold that deprivation of liberty to the respondents is justified. They have lost their right to liberty once they were convicted and imprisoned. if they want to seek remission in accordance with law then they have to be in jail. Rule law must prevail. Thus, all respondents are directed to report to jail authorities within two weeks,”

When the judgment was delivered, the Gujarat Government was on the eve of launching its vibrant tamasha at the expense of the tax-payer! MOUs of a mind-boggling amount were signed; the plain truth is that (and everybody knows it!) very little will actually materialise, as past evidence shows! Instead, the Gujarat Government, together with the other criminals in the Central Government, need to hang their heads down in shame! They have reached such abysmal depths that they are unable to stand up for a poor rural woman who has been gang-raped and who has witnessed the rape and murder of her kith and kin! The judgment where the Bilkis Bano case is concerned, is certainly a shot in the arm for all those who believe in truth and justice; it has delivered a body blow to criminals who are part of a fascist regime! Of course, they are certain to make every effort to look for ‘loop-holes’ in the judgment, in order to justify their criminal act and to see how best they can still keep their men out of prison!

In a powerful statement on hearing the path breaking verdict, Bilkis says, “today is truly the New Year for me. I have wept tears of relief. I have smiled for the first time in over a year and half. I have hugged my children. It feels like a stone the size of a mountain has been lifted from my chest, and I can breathe again. This is what justice feels like. I thank the honourable Supreme Court of India for giving me, my children and women everywhere, this vindication and hope in the promise of equal justice for all”

At this moment Bilkis Bano and all who believe in truth and justice, stand vindicated! Hopefully, it is new dawn, for we the people of India!

January 17, 2024

(The author is a human rights, justice, reconciliation & peace activist/writer)

The post Bilkis Bano vindicated! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

And it was here that I met Bilkis Bano first in early March, soon after the ghastly crimes committed on her and then on March 22, 2002, again. I then recorded this interview which was published in the seminal issue of Commumalism Combat, ”Genocide” Gujarat 2002.

She recounted her tale haltingly but firm, as tears did not stop welling up as the account progressed and she recalled what the “mob” had done to her precious three year old Saleha, the unborn child in her womb (she was pregnant at the time), her mother and her sister. She has, by then already sent her complaint, in writing, to the Superintendent of Police (SP) Godhra, then one Rajiv Bhargava. She even provided us with a copy of the written complaint to the SP.

I recorded the interview dispassionately, reproducing the words she uttered, in Gujarati and Hindi, both languages I understand.

Today, January 9, 2024, a day after the Supreme Court’s historic verdict in quashing the remission order that allowed 11 men –powerfully connected to the regime in Delhi and Gandhinagar (Gujarat)—to walk free on August 15, 2022, I turned the pages of my diaries, documents and files, pages that go back 22 years.

As a writer and student of the law, a profession and process that witnesses fewer successes and more failures on the question of substantive justice delivery,  I felt the need to reproduce that account, in the first person by Bilkis Rasool Shaikh made before me at the Godhra Relief Camp on March 22, 2022.

For the record, Justice JS Verma, then Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and former Chief Justice of India (CJI) was also present at the Godhra Relief Camp the same day. The NHRC report on Gujarat 2002 (Interim report, April 2002 and Final Report July 2002) remains the most accurate and scathing indictment of the then state government in its failure to ensure the Indian constitutional mandate, its complicity in allowing innocent lives of women, men and children, and their dignity to be snatched away. By mobs of men who enjoyed political cover and impunity.

Saluts Bilkis Bano!

Panchmahal

Place: Randhikpur, Panchmahal district
Witness: Bilkees (19-year-old). Rabia, her neighbour and relative, was with her at the time of the interview. (Interviewed by Teesta Setalvad at Godhra Relief Camp on March 22)

“On the highway just outside the village we were set upon by a mob and 14 persons from my family were butchered and killed — 7 from my father’s family and 7 from my in-laws’ side. All the women and young girls, including my 3 1/2 -year-old baby, were…….. before being killed. They did the same thing to me, and if I am alive, it is only because after attacking me, they left me, thinking I was dead.

“My aunt, my mother, my three sisters all met with the same fate. I am 5-6 months pregnant. My husband and in-laws were away for Id. My husband came to meet me yesterday. All the other villagers, including Rabia’s family, had fled the day before, but we stayed behind because my aunt’s daughter was about to deliver. That delay has cost us everything. I have filed a complaint with the police but I don’t know whether I will get justice.

Bilkees’ FIR, addressed to the DSP, Dahod, reads:

“I, the complainant, am married to Yakub Rasul Patel, resident of Kapdi falia, Baria. We had a daughter named Saleha who was aged 3 ½ years. My mother’s home is in Randhikpur taluka, Dahod.

“On February 23, it being Id, I had gone with my little girl to my mother’s home. On February 27, because of the incident at Godhra Railway station, there was tension and violence in the surrounding villages. In order to save our lives, at about 10 o’clock in the morning on February 28, a total of 16 people from our house — I, my two sisters and two brothers, our mother, my little girl, my maternal uncle, my paternal aunt and her husband and their daughters — left Randhikpur for Baria on foot. As we came to know that there was violence everywhere on the way, we stopped at Bijal Damor in Chuddi village. Around midnight, we went and hid in Kuvajar mosque.

“The daughter of my paternal aunt who was pregnant, gave birth to a girl. Around 10 o’clock the next morning, we went to Khudra and stayed with Adivasis for two days. After two days, early in the morning, we came to Chhaparwad. We were walking down a kutcha road to save our lives.

“While passing between two hills, two vehicles came in the direction of Chhaparwad and Randhikpur, with 30-40 people in them. This included Shailesh Bhat, Raju Soni, Lala doctor, Govind Nana, Jaswant Navi, Lalo Vakil, who is the son of Bhagu Kuverji and Kesar Khima, Baka Khima Vasava. All of them are from Randhikpur so we recognised them. The others were from Chhaparwad, whose names we did not know, but whom I would recognise if I see them.

“All had lethal weapons in their hands — swords, spears, scythes, sticks, daggers, bows and arrows. They started screaming, “Kill them, Cut them up!’ They raped my two sisters and me and behaved in an inhuman way with my uncle and aunt’s daughters. They tore our clothes and raped eight of us. Before my very eyes they killed my 3 ½-year-old daughter.

“The people who raped me are Shailesh Bhatt, Lala doctor, Lala Vakil and Govind Navi, all of whom I know very well. After raping me, they beat me up. Having been injured in the head, I fainted. They left, assuming I was dead.

“After two to three hours, when I regained consciousness, on seeing the corpses of my family members, I was terrified. I climbed up the hill and stayed there the whole night.

“In the morning, when the police came to know about this attack, they came to take the corpses and found me alive. As all my clothes were torn, they brought me some clothes from the house of an Adivasi staying at the foot of the hill. Then they brought me to Limkheda and from there I was brought to the relief camp at Godhra.

“The above-mentioned people raped my deceased sisters and me, as well as the daughters of my maternal uncle and my paternal aunt. They killed all the people except myself. For which reason I say that legal action should be taken against the above-mentioned people.”

The deceased: 15 of a family butchered. All women victims, including a 3 1/2 -year-old baby, raped before being killed. Among those named by Bilkis Bano orally included  Shailesh Bhat, Raju Soni, Lala doctor, Govind Nana, Jaswant Navi, Lalo Vakil, who is the son of Bhagu Kuverji and Kesar Khima, Baka Khima Vasava (all from Randhikpur).

Facts from the prosecution case:

On that fateful day of the targeted crimes, after remaining unconscious for some time Bilkis got up and found her petticoat and put on it and climbed the hill. She stayed overnight on the hill and came down to a hand pump where one Adivasi woman gave her blouse and Odhani, Thereafter, on seeing a man in police uniform she went to him who took her to Limkheda Police Station where police head constable Somabhai – A – 17, on 04.03.2002, recorded her complaint which was not taken down as per her say and the offence was registered vide I.C.R. No. 59/02.

The investigation was then carried out by police head constable Narpatsing (later accused 13), I. A. Saiyed (later Accused 14) , C.P.I. R.M. Bhabhor (later Accused 16 and B.S. Bhagora , Dy . S.P. (later Accused 18). B.R. Patel was the P.S.I. at the Limkheda Police Station during the said period.

On March 4, 2002, photographs of the 8 dead bodies were taken. Again, the next day, March 5, 3, 2002 photographs of seven dead bodies were taken and the post mortem (P.M). was performed by Dr. Arunkumar and Dr. Sangeeta (later Accused 19 and Accused 20) respectively.

Ultimately, the C.P.I. R.M. Bhabhor ‘ A ‘ Summary report with the recommendation of R.S. Bhagora in the court of the Ld . JMFC, Limkheda and the Court, despite the evidence, accepted the report.

Bilkis with the legal aid provided by NHRC Challenged the ‘ A ‘ Summary report in the Hon’ble Supreme Court which set aside the ‘ A ‘ Summary report and transferred the investigation to C.B.I. and the C.B.I. filed the Charge sheet in the Supreme Court against the present accused and case was transferred for trial to Maharashtra by the Supreme Court. The Charge Sheet filed by the CBI may be read in the April-May 2004 issue of Communalism Combat here.

Note:

The 11 convicts released on premature release  (August 15, 2022) — Radheshyam Shah, Jaswant Chaturbhai Nai, Keshubhai Vadaniya, Bakabhai Vadaniya, Rajibhai Soni, Rameshbhai Chauhan, Shaileshbhai Bhatt, Bipin Chandra Joshi, Govindbhai Nai, Mitesh Bhatt, Pradip Modhiya

The ones convicted by Special CBI Court in 2008 -Jaswantbhai Nai, Govindbhai Nai, and Naresh Kumar Mordhiya (deceased) had raped Bilkis, while Shailesh Bhatt had killed her daughter, Saleha, by “smashing” her on the ground. Others who were convicted are Radheshyam Shah, Bipin Chandra Joshi, Kesarbhai Vohania, Pradeep Vohania, Bakabhai Vohania, Rajubhai Soni, Nitesh Bhatt, Ramesh Chandana, and Head Constable Somabhai Gori.

(The author is a senior journalist, co-editor Communalism Combat and now Sabrangindia.in and secretary, Citizens for Justice and Peace)

Related:

“I will stand & fight again, against what is wrong & for what is right, for women everywhere’: Bilkis Bano

Bilkis Bano case: Convicts set free with MHA’s approval, despite opposition from CBI and Special Court

Bilkees Bano Case: Rejecting Appeals of 11 Accused Bombay High Court Upholds Convictions

NHRC report, 2002

https://nhrc.nic.in/press-release/nhrc-makes-prelimnary-comments-and-recommendations-government-gujarat-and-government

https://nhrc.nic.in/press-release/further-proceedings-commission-situation-gujarat

The post Bilkis Bano speaks: First person account, Godhra Relief Camp, March 2002 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Advocate Shobha Gupta, who has stoically represented Bilkis in her battle for justice in the apex court told Sabrang India, “It is a victory for all of us.”

Strong words of censure against the deliberate lapses in procedure have been made in the much-hailed judgement. The bench slammed the Gujarat government of being “complicit” and having “acted in tandem with the convict in approaching the Supreme Court with unclean hands, making misleading statements and hiding relevant material” and having granted remission “as an instance of usurpation of power of the Maharashtra government.” J. Nagarathna also remarked that it was this same complicity by the Gujarat government with the convicts in the case that had resulted in the cases being transferred out of the state. Referring to the nullity of the May 2022 judgment of the Supreme Court, which had granted the power to the Gujarat Court to grant remission in the said case and was heavily relied by the respondents in the present case, the bench had pointed stated “We fail to understand why the state of Gujarat did not file a review petition against the judgment dated May 13, 2022. Had the Government filed a review and impressed upon this court, the ensuing litigation would not have occurred.”

Based on this, the bench deemed the present case to be a ““A classic case where the order of this court was used to violate the rule of law by granting remission.”

In short, the Supreme Court quashed the remission order of the Gujarat government that granted premature release to the eleven convicts from their life imprisonment for multiple murders and gang rapes, including that of Bilkis Bano, during the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat. Through this highly anticipated judgement, the bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan emphasised on the duty of Constitutional Courts to ensure justice and rule of law and the importance that has been assured to the rights of a victim in India’s criminal justice system. Before beginning with the pronouncement, Justice Nagarathna had stated “A woman deserves respect”.

On January 8, the Supreme Court bench delivered its verdict in the case against the early release of Bilkis Bano Gangrape Convicts by the Gujarat Government on August 15, 2022. During the pronouncement of the verdict, judgment of which has been authored by Justice Nagarathna, the bench concerned itself with the following issues:

1. The maintainability of the petition filed by Bilkis Bano and other PILs, moved by CPI (M) Member of Parliament Subhashini Ali, journalist Revathi Laul and Prof. Roop Rekha Verma, former Trinmool Congress Member of Parliament Mahua Moitra, assailing the remission order were maintainable or not
2. Whether the Gujarat Government was competent to pass the said remission orders and if due process had been followed in the said case
3. Whether the remission orders in accordance with law

Issue 1: Maintainability

Referring to the first issue, J. Nagarathna held Bilkis Bano’s petition challenging the grant of remission to be maintainable. In view of this, the bench refused to answer the question raised regarding the maintainability of the PILs (Public interest litigations) filed in the said case as the Court had already found Bilkis Bano’s petition to be maintainable.

Issue 2: Power of Gujarat government to grant remission

Addressing the said issue, J. Nagarathna observed that instead of holding the place of occurrence of crime and place of imprisonment as the relevant consideration in this case, emphasis needed to be on the place of trial. In view of this, the bench stated “Government of the state, i.e. the Maharashtra government, where the offender is sentenced is the appropriate one to grant remission and not the government of the state, i.e. the Gujarat government, where the offence took place.”

Based upon the said observation, the bench held that the state government of Gujarat was not the competent government to pass the said order. While holding the aforementioned ground, of the Gujarat government lacking competence, to be enough to hold the remission orders null, the bench went on to deal with the ruling of the Supreme Court of May 13, 2022, which had enabled the Gujarat government to consider remission of convicts.

In the said judgment of May 2022, the Supreme Court bench comprising former Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Vikram Nath was dealing with the petition filed by Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah @ Lala Vakil seeking direction to the State of Gujarat to consider his application for pre­mature release under the policy that was existing at the time of his conviction. The said bench had held that the remission or pre­mature release in terms of the policy which is applicable in the State where the crime was committed has to be considered. The present bench held the above-mentioned petitioned filed by convict Radheshyam to be suppressing material facts as well as containing misleading facts. It was also pointed out the opinion of presiding judge in the earlier judgment of Bombay High Court was also not revealed. Furthermore, J. Nagarathna held the judgment delivered by Supreme Court in May to be a “nullity” as it was obtained by “playing fraud on the Court”. The bench also emphasised that the same was in contrary to the Constitution Bench judgment in Sriharan case, which had dealt with the power of the Court to substitute a death sentence by life imprisonment or by a term in excess of fourteen year.

In pursuance to making the said observations, the bench declared the judgment being relied upon to be a nullity, inasmuch as it was hit by fraud and the doctrine of per incuriam (bad in law). The bench added that the May 2022 judgement was per incuriam as it was contrary to the plain letter of the statute as well as binding judgments of the Supreme Court.

With this, the Supreme Court bench in the present case held that the government of Gujarat had no competence to entertain the applications for remission or pass orders thereon regarding the eleven convicts and that the May 2022 order of the Supreme Court had been obtained by fraud a nullity.

Issue 3: Remission orders to be in accordance to law

At the outset, J. Nagarathna observed all the remission orders dated August 10, 2022 to be “stereotype and cyclostyled orders”. Dealing with the test of whether test is whether the authority was acting within the scope of powers and if the same was exercised in accordance with law, J. Nagarathna observed that “There is arbitrariness if there is non-consideration of relavant factors, non-application of mind, acting on dictation, or any usurpation of power. Usurpation of power arises when power vested in one authority is exercised by another. Applying the principle in this case, having regard to our answer of ‘appropriate power’, Gujarat Government exercising the power was an instance of usurpation of power.”

In addition to terming the Gujarat government’s action of issuing the remission orders to be “usurpation of power” and “abuse of power”, J. Nagarathna also came down heavily at the Gujarat government for failing to file a review petition against the May 13, 2022 judgment of the Supreme Court. During her pronouncement, she stated “What is interesting is that in the earlier judgment, Gujarat Government had submitted before this Court that appropriate government was that of Maharashtra. But the same contention was rejected, which was contrary to precedents. Inspite of this, the state of Gujarat failed to file a review petition. We fail to understand why the state of Gujarat did not file a review petition against the judgment dated May 13, 2022. Had the Government filed a review and impressed upon this court, the ensuing litigation would not have occurred.”

The bench then slammed the Gujarat government of “acting in tandem” with the convict who had approached the Supreme Court with “unclean hands to suppress facts”.

In furtherance to this, J. Nagarathna pointed stated that it was this complicity of the state of Gujarat Government with the convicts that had resulted in the transfer of trial. As reported by LiveLaw, Justice Nagarathna observed “State of Gujarat acted in complicit with the convicts, which was the very apprehension that had led this Court to transfer the trial out of the State.”

Observing the abovementioned, the bench then held the presence instance to be “A classic case where the order of this court was used to violate the rule of law by granting remission.”  With this, the bench quashed the remission order and held the convicts to be the beneficiaries of an invalid order.

The primary question- Protection of personal liberty vs. rule of law?

Pursuant to the quashing of the remission orders issued by the Gujarat government, the question that loomed in front of the bench was to decide whether the released convicts should be sent back to prison. Pondering upon the same, J. Nagarathna stated “In our view, personal liberty is important. But this is a case where 11 convicts are granted liberty on a remission order which has been quashed. So, should they be sent back to prison? This is a delicate question.”

This question needed to be decision in view of the entitlement of liberty to a person under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. With regards to this, the bench held that “As per Article 21, a person is entitled to liberty only in accordance with law.” Exploring further on the same, the bench held that rule of law mean that no one can be above law and any breach of rule of law amounts to negation of right to equality.

Emphasising upon the duty of Court to step in and enforce the rule of law, the bench stated “This Court must be a beacon in upholding the rule of law. In a democracy, rule of law has to be preserved. Compassion and sympathy have no role to play. It is through power of judicial review conferred on independent institutions, like High Courts and Supreme Court, that the rule of law is preserved. Rule of law must be preserved unmindful of the ripples of the consequences.”

Imploring the duty of the court to “be mindful not just to the spelling of JUSTICE but also the content of it” as well as “to correct arbitrary orders at the earliest and to retain the foundation of trust of the public”, the bench asserted that by allowing the convicts to remain out of prison will amount to giving an imprimatur to invalid orders. The bench also highlighted that the eleven convicts had remained in prison for a little over fourteen years while enjoying multiple liberal parole and furlough. In view of ensuring that “rule of law prevails”, the bench then ordered the eleven convicts in the Bilkis Bano gang rape and murder case to surrender back to prison within 2 weeks.

J. Nagarathna also said “We hold that deprivation of liberty to the respondents (convicts) is justified. They have lost their right to liberty once they were convicted and imprisoned. Also, if they want to seek remission again, it is important that they have to be in jail.”

Bilkis Bano case was and is among the rarest of rare case. Since March 2002, she has fought virtually alone in the most adverse of circumstances, helped mainly by a band of human rights activists, many of whom themselves became victims of the processes of injustice, precisely because of the help extended in cases like Bilkis’. After 20 years, one can only hope that Bilkis’s quest for justice is over.

Brief background of the case:

During the communal violence that engulfed Gujarat in February- March 2002, in a particularly brutal attack, 14 members of Bilkis Bano’s family were killed, including Bano’s two-and-a-half-year-old daughter whose head was smashed on a rock! On March 3, moving from one village to another, the group were spotted by gangs of men in two cars hunting for Muslims. At the time she was carrying Saleeha, her three-year-old daughter, in her arms. She recognised the men, mainly from her own village, who rushed towards her. They tore the child from her arms and smashed her head on the ground. The child died before her mother’s eyes. Three men gang raped the pregnant Bilkis. Her sister and cousin sister were also raped. One of them had given birth only the day before. The baby was with her. Every single one of the group of eight was killed including the baby. Bilkis, who had lost consciousness, was left for dead, but she survived.

After Bilkis Bano approached the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the Supreme Court ordered a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The accused were arrested in 2004 and the trial originally began in Ahmedabad. However, Bano expressed concerns about witness intimidation and evidence tampering and the case was transferred to Mumbai in August 2004. After a tortuous legal journey, the men were convicted by a special CBI court in January 2008. In 2017, the High Court upheld their conviction.

The order of remission:

After completing 14 years behind bars, Radheshyam Shah moved court for sentence remission. But the Gujarat High Court dismissed his plea stating the appropriate government to consider his plea under sections 432 and 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was Maharashtra and not Gujarat. Then, Shah moved Supreme Court which ruled in May that Gujarat was the appropriate state to examine his plea. Besides, the presiding Judge who heard the trial in Mumbai after transfer, UD Salvi had also expressed his opinion against the remission.

A committee was formed to look into the plea for remission and according to Panchmahals collector Sujal Mayatra it “took a unanimous decision in favour of remission of all the 11 convicts in the case.” Both the Gujarat government and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) acceded to the request.

The convicts who were granted remission were: Jaswant Nai, Govind Nai, Shailesh Bhatt, Mitesh Bhatt, Radhyesham Shah, Bipin Chandra Joshi, Kesarbhai Vohania, Bakabhai Vohania, Rajubhai Soni, Pradeep Mordhiya, and Ramesh Chandana. They are all residents of Randhikpur village located in Daud district of Gujarat. They were all known to Bilkis Bano and her family; while some were neighbours, others did business with her family. In May 2022, the Supreme Court bench of Justice Rastogi and Justice Vikram Nath had held that Gujarat Government was the appropriate government to consider the remission in the case and directed that the remission applications be decided within two months. On August 15, 2022, as India was celebrating her 75th Independence Day, these convicts walked out of jail and were felicitated with garlands by their family and friends.

Outrage followed and many legal luminaries and civil society members also wondered how remission was granted for serious crimes like gang rape and mass murder. Justice UD Salvi, the judge who had convicted the eleven men, told Bar and Bench, “A very bad precedent has been set. This is wrong, I would say. Now, convicts in other gang rape cases would seek similar reliefs.” Then nearly 9,000 people from different walks of life in Mumbai participated in a signature campaign urging the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to reverse the decision to grant remissions.

Then an NDTV investigation revealed that at least five people on the Advisory Committee that recommended the release are allegedly connected to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Citing an official document that lists the members of the advisory committee, NDTV said it included two BJP MLAs, a member of the BJP state executive committee and two others, who are also linked to the party.

Meanwhile, according to a report by journalist Barkha Dutt’s digital news platform Mojo Story, some of the eleven convicts were not living in their homes after their release. Families of some convicts said they were on pilgrimage, but none provided details of their whereabouts of when they would return. This is significant in light of the current hearings before the Supreme Court. If the court overturns the decision to grant remission, the men need to be traceable so that they can be re-imprisoned.

Petitions against the Remission:

On August 25, 2022, the Supreme Court bench comprising of the then Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Vikram Nath had issued notice to the state on the petition challenging the order of Gujarat Government allowing premature release of 11 convicts sentenced to life in the Bilkis Bano case for gangrape & murder. While Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal had narrated the grim facts of the case, relating to exodus of Muslim population, rampant incidents of rape and murders, etc., the counsel appearing for State of Gujarat on the other hand opposed the petition on ground of maintainability.

In October, 2022, the Gujarat government told the Supreme Court that it decided to release the 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano case on completion of their 14 years sentence as their “behaviour was found to be good”. The approval for their release was granted despite opposition from a special court and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The Gujarat government also submitted before the Supreme Court that it was the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) that enabled the release of eleven men convicted in the Bilkis Bano case.

It is pertinent to note that one of the convicts, who was released by the Gujarat government on remission in the Bilkis Bano case, stands charge sheeted for outraging the modesty of a woman on June 19, 2020.

Related:

‘Be ready with files’, SC warns as it issues notice to GoI, Gujarat govts on Bilkis Bano’s plea against remission of convicts

Bilkis Bano gang rape convict shares stage with BJP MP, MLA: Gujarat

“I will stand & fight again, against what is wrong & for what is right, for women everywhere’: Bilkis Bano

Bilkis Bano case: Convicts set free with MHA’s approval, despite opposition from CBI and Special Court

The post Bilkis Bano Case: Supreme Court strikes down remission for gang rape and murder convicts, citing flagrant violation of rule of law appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The court in Panchmahal district said that the 190 witnesses examined in the case had either “turned hostile” or “not supported the prosecution’s case” or were “unable to recall facts or identify the accused”.

Panchmahals: A court in north Gujarat’s Panchmahal district has acquitted 27 accused of gang rape and murder of over 10 people during the 2002 Gujarat carnage citing lack of evidence.

There were a total of 39 accused in the case, but the remaining 12 had died during the trial period. Additional sessions judge L.G. Chudasma of the Halol court observed that the prosecution case is based on “mere suspicion without any evidence on record”, Indian Express reported.

Delivering its verdict recently, the sessions court held that the 190 witnesses examined in the case had either “turned hostile” or “not supported the prosecution’s case” or were “unable to recall facts or identify the accused” in relation to incidents that took place on March 1, 2022.

According to available media reports the court has not commented on the inadequacy of the state’s prosecution case neither has it held any police officer or any part of the investigation team responsible for the failure. Witnesses turning hostile is a frequent malaise in India’s criminal justice system. Under Section 164 of the CRPC empowers courts to direct that evidence of worth is collected even while the trial is on.

The prosecution’s case was that the accused, as part of a mob, went on a rampage during a bandh call given after the Sabarmati train burning incident in Godhra on February 27. A first information report (FIR) was lodged against the accused at Kalol police station on March 2, 2002. The accused were booked for rioting, unlawful assembly, rioting with armed weapons, murder, and causing the disappearance of evidence, among other sections of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution also said that over 13 persons were killed when a mob of more than 2,000 people from “Hindu and Muslim communities” clashed with sharp weapons and inflammable objects in Kalol city in the Gandhinagar district. They damaged shops and set them on fire.

At the time, in a shocking incident, a man who was injured in police firing was burnt alive in a tempo he was being taken to a hospital for burn injuries. In another instance, a man stepping out from a mosque was attacked and burnt alive inside the mosque by rioters. The prosecution had detailed several such incidents of gory violence.

Related:

21 years later, 14 acquitted for murder in one of the many 2002 Gujarat riots cases

Bilkis Bano’s plea against remission to convicts could not be heard in SC

Provocative poster in Delhi’s Brahmpuri calls on Hindu landlords to not sell to Muslim buyers

Review of 2022: A year of discrimination & violence experienced by India’s religious minorities

The post 21 years down, ‘Lack of Evidence’, says Gujarat Court and Acquits 27 Accused of Gang Rape, Murder During 2002 Violence appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
Anand: The BJP candidate from Anand Lok Sabha seat in Gujarat, Mitesh Patel, declared in his poll affidavit that he was an accused in a case related to the 2002 post-Godhra riots.
 
Patel, 54, was earlier chosen by the BJP to fight against former Gujarat Congress president Bharatsinh Solanki from the Anand Lok Sabha constituency of central Gujarat.
 
In his affidavit submitted to the election authorities on Tuesday, Patel mentioned that an FIR was registered against him at Vasad police station in Anand district in 2002 for engaging in arson, rioting, stone-pelting and theft, among other charges.
 
He was accused under IPC sections 147 (Punishment for rioting) 149 (Rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 436 (Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house), 332 (Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty), 337 (Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others), 143 (unlawful assembly), 380 (theft).
 
Patel also mentioned that the Anand sessions court acquitted him in September 2010. The case is now pending before the Gujarat High Court as the state government filed an appeal in 2011 against his acquittal.
 
Patel, a native of Vasad, is fighting his first big election. He is treasurer of the BJP’s Anand district unit.
 
He is the convener of Gujarat Dal Utpadak Mandal and state representative of Pulse and Export Manufacturing Association of India. He is an ex-committee member of the Gujarat state BJP.
 
He also serves as the government-nominated syndicate member of Sardar Patel University, Vallabh Vidyanagar.
 
Patel has declared that he and his wife have movable assets worth Rs 3.48 crore and immovable assets of Rs 4.22 crore.
 

The post BJP fields Godhra riots accused Mitesh Patel from Anand LS seat appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
The Pakistan-sponsored terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament on 13 December 2001 compelled India to contemplate punitive action. I had, just prior to this, taken over command of a Division of a ‘Strike’ Corps in September 2001. Following the blatant Parliament attack, the Indian Armed Forces were mobilised. It took us close to two weeks for the build-up in the concentration area in Rajasthan due to paucity of railway rolling stock. I was called to the Corps HQ and briefed on various offensive options. They looked very good on paper but I knew that ground realities would compel us to be more realistic. My formation was under-strength, with relief for two infantry battalions and one artillery regiment held up in Kashmir. Another problem was cross-country mobility. Fortunately, we received imported high-mobility vehicles which gave one Brigade the capability to move cross-country along with mechanized forces. There was also talk about raising a small number of camel-mounted troops for special operations. We got a draft of men from an old camel-mounted battalion, and I, an old cameleer, gave them a lesson or two.
(Photograph 55 on page no. 127)
 
            The Chief of Army Staff (COAS), General S. Padmanabhan (Paddy), visited and addressed the formation commanders in Jodhpur sometime in early 2002 and left us in no doubt about the impending reprisal which we all felt was necessary. I had served under General Paddy as his Colonel (General Staff) in Punjab and I had no inhibitions in pointing out the abysmal deficiencies in my formation. These were speedily made up and we got down to serious training. The ambitious options I had been made privy to were rehashed according to the ground realities of the impending conflict.
(Photograph 56 on page no. 128)
 
            While we were deployed, sharpening our sabres, we got news about the communal upheaval in Gujarat. (Photograph 57 on page no. 129) As a reaction to the Godhra carnage on 27 February 2002, a statewide bandh was organised on 28 February 2002 by right wing political organisations. Permission was given to bring the bodies of burnt ‘kar sevaks’ in a procession to Ahmedabad. This naturally inflamed passions. The bandh turned violent with large-scale communal killings, destruction of economic assets, arson and looting, targeting the minority community. The state government requested for deployment of the Army through the Union Home Ministry and the Ministry of Defence on 28 February 2002.
 
            That evening, after I had just come back from an existence of one of my Brigades, I received a telephone call from the COAS. I was a little surprised since the ‘Chief’ would seldom speak directly to a Divisional Commander. Gen Paddy’s directions to me were, “Zoom, get your formation to Gujarat tonight and quell the riots.’ I replied, ‘Sir, the road move will take us two days.’ He shot back, ‘The Air Force will take care of your move from Jodhpur. Get maximum troops to the airfield. Speed and resolute action are the need of the hour.’
 
            I rang up the Crops Commander and told him of the instructions I had received from the COAS. I was told that logistic support would be provided by the lodger formation HQ at Jodhpur. I was also assured that the necessary vehicles, guides, magistrates et cetera to accompany the troop columns as well as city maps would be made available when we landed at Jodhpur.
 

 The Gujarat riots of 2002 were different from earlier riots. There were some striking dissimilarities: There were no attempts to convene Peace Committees. The inter-community chasm had become far too wide to allow this to happen. Earlier, riots were the handiwork of a handful of trouble-makers. This time rioting assumed the dimension of a mass activity, involving the middle class citizens too. The self-deluding belief that riots were the handiwork of the lumpen elements and outsiders no longer rang true. The most disturbing factor was the participation of women provocateurs. Women of the majority community, taking a cue from Jammu and Kashmir and the NE region, participated, for the first time, as instigators. The minority community too used women as ‘shields’ to discourage police incursions into minority pockets.

 
            I gave necessary orders for two Brigades to head for Jodhpur airfield. The Brigade out on exercise had to disengage. I told my Deputy GOC to ensure expeditious movement of troops and headed for Jodhpur airfield. It was a Herculean airlift effort. The first column of troops arrived at Jodhpur airfield in three hours and was quickly transferred to the waiting aircraft. My party, comprising my ADC and communications personnel, boarded the first aircraft. I had taken the precaution of ensuring that my Gypsy vehicle also went along with us. During the two-hour journey by air, I read through the pamphlet on ‘Aid to Civil Authority 1969’. When we were approaching Ahmedabad airfield I observed that the city was aflame. There were fires burning all across the city.
 
            We landed on a dark and deserted airfield. The Deputy GOC of the lodger formation received me. I asked, ‘Where are the vehicles and other logistic support we had been promised.’ He shrugged his shoulders and replied that the state government was making the necessary arrangements. I knew that there was only one way to energise the state government. I asked for a guide to take me to the Chief Minister’s (Mr Narendra Modi) residence at Gandhi Nagar. En route I was horrified to observe rampaging mobs, burning and pillaging with the police as mute spectators.
 
            I reached the Chief Minister’s residence at 2 a.m. on 1 March, and to my great relief, found Raksha Mantri (RM) Mr George Fernandes there. Both were having a late dinner and invited me to join them. I did, but immediately got down to ‘brass tacks’. I had a tourist map of Gujarat and asked for the trouble spots. I also gave a list of immediate requirements to enable the Army columns to fan out to restore law and order.
 
            I returned to the airfield to check out the arrival of the 60-odd flights of IL-76s and AN-32s. By 7 a.m. on 1 March 2002, we had about 3000 troops landed, but no transport, so they remained at the airfield. These were crucial hours lost. Out road columns reached us on 2 March and so did the requisitioned civil trucks, magistrates, police guides and maps.
 
            A school building complex was allotted to us and we established the Control HQ. An Additional Director General of Police, Mr Gurdial Singh, was detailed as the Liaison Officer. This confused the men about the authority in charge. A police officer sporting three stars or a two-star Army General? In a day’s time, they knew who was in charge.
 
            The initial deployment areas (trouble spots), as indicated by the Chief Minister, were Rajkot, Bhavnagar, Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Godhra and Surat. There were several re-deployments, as dictated by the ground situation. Saurashtra and southern Gujarat generally remained peaceful. Major violence rocked Ahmedabad, Vadodara and Panchmahal districts of northern Gujarat.
 
            The situation was highly tense and communally charged. Armed mobs were roaming unrestrained, committing arson and murder. In the urban areas, a curfew had been ordered, but not enforced. When the Army columns reached the towns, unruly mobs were freely burning and rioting. At a number of locations people were trapped in buildings and places of worship, and were being attacked by mobs. The streets were choked with burning vehicles. Localities had been barricaded to prevent incursions by adversary mobs. These impeded the movement of the Army columns.
 

A question arose – why were most of the casualties members of one community. My explanation was that the soldier does not recognize the community of a person but can identify an arsonist and he deals with the situation as per orders. Large quantities of guns, country-made weapons, crude bombs and incendiary material were recovered and either destroyed or handed over to police. Other major tasks were burials and escorting affected persons of the minority community to safer places of refuge. Approximately 10,000 persons were evacuated from riot-affected areas by the troops. A large number of distress messages were being received to rescue family members of service personnel. These were promptly attended to.

 
            Both communities were indulging in pitched battles, hurling crude improvised bombs, acid bombs and Molotov cocktails at each other. Extensive damage to property and life, primarily of the minority community, had taken place on 28 February 2002. The police, initially armed with ‘lathis’ were passive bystanders since orders for issue of rifles had not then been given. The partisan attitude of the police lay exposed when I observed that when minority-populated localities were surrounded by mobs, the police did not fire at the rioters laying siege, but into windows of surrounded homes of minorities, instead ostensibly to ‘keep the two rioting communities apart’, as sheepishly explained to me. I did not hesitate to show disapproval at this contemptible and partisan attitude.
 
            Godhra town was extremely tense and the entire city was under curfew. Violence had spread to the neighbouring small towns of Panchmahal district. Property of the minority community and individuals were being systematically targeted and large-scale migration was taking place. The major trouble spots were minority ghettos. Successive communal riots had forced the minority community into walled communes. The mixed localities had progressively shrunk, and exclusive ethnic ghettos, with a ‘siege’ mentality, had sprouted.
 
            The roads separating these localities were termed as ‘border’ by both communities, and were the ‘fault lines’ along which there was always major violence. The migration of the middle class to ghettos was fraught with danger. Those who had lost everything were’ripe for plucking’ by anti-national elements. An unbridgeable communal divide had been created. Pockets of majority-dominated areas had been strengthened by building barricades, gates, high-rise walls etc. these were portents of future trouble.
 
            In the rural areas, the situation was highly tense and communally charged. These areas were earlier free of communal violence but now were afflicted. Road blocks had been established on rural roads and systematic looting and burning of vehicles of the minority community was in progress. Marauding Adivasi gangs from Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh created mayhem along the areas bordering these two states. The official figures of deaths and damage do not reflect a true picture of the actual extent of the carnage-especially in the rural areas. Armed mobs were indulging in arson and murder. The police were conspicuously absent.
 
            The troops recovered bodies from wells and gave them decent burials. At one stage, I seriously considered recommending imposition of Martial Law. I was dissuaded from taking this extreme step as it might have been construed as over-stepping my mandate.
 
            The following reference to ‘Martial Law’ is made in the Manual of Military Law, Volume I (Chapter VII, paras 15-19) and GS Pamphlet, Aid to Civil Authority (Section 9):
 
            “Conditions of extreme disorder may sometimes arise when the civil authorities, even with the help of the armed forces, are unable to bring the situation under control. In such cases, Martial Law may be imposed in the disturbed area by a military commander. Martial Law may also be imposed by a military commander when there is a complete breakdown of civil administration e.g., during an insurrection against the Government. Martial Law is, thus, the exercise of the right of private defence by repelling force by force.”
 
            There is no reference to Martial Law in the Manual of Military Law (Volumes II & III) CrPC, IPC or any other Act. This created confusion in my mind about its applicability, sustainability and legality. Martial Law needs to be legislated. If not acceptable, references to it must be deleted from ‘Manual of Military Law (Volume I)’ and GS Pamphlet ‘Aid to Civil Authority, 1969’.
 
            I visited Godhra along with the RM the next day and we were shown the burnt carriages. I advised the Railways to remove them immediately but the coaches remained in situ for many months-grim reminders and symbols of human hatred-triggering revulsion and heightening passions among those who saw them.
 
            The RM, during the visit, asked me, in confidence, what steps should be immediately taken. I recommended an immediate overhaul of the police hierarchy and a police Director General (DG) from outside the Gujarat cadre. He agreed with me, saying, ‘You have taken the words out of my mouth.’ We waited but there was no change.
 
            Mr K.P.S Gill was inducted as Security Adviser to the Chief Minister of Gujarat on 4 May 2002. As always, he hogged the headlines after the task had already been done by the Army. There was a feeble attempt to revamp the police and arrest ‘charge-sheeters’ and perpetrators of violence because of the clear signals emanating from the Central Government to the state that restoration of normalcy was essential.
 
            The Corps Commander, Lt. Gen Hari Prasad, under whom I had now been placed was most supportive and visited the troops many times. (Photograph 58 on page no. 129) The Army Commander Lt Gen G.S. Sihota whom I admired and trusted also visited many times to take stock of the situation. (Photograph 59 on page no. 130)
 
            Attempts to get community leaders to come forward and spread the message of amity yielded disappointing results. (Photograph 60 on page no. 130) Our troops performed magnificently and fairly. One night, I got a report that a Commanding Officer of one of the units in Ahmedabad was making late night visits to the home of a divorced Ghanchi Muslim woman. I asked him to explain his conduct and when I got no satisfactory explanation I recommended that he be replaced immediately. He was moved out post-haste. I did not know that this would be used as a weapon against me with the insinuation that I myself was involved with that woman and that I resented another officer taking interest in her.
 
            There are several reasons for the uncontrolled violence. The initial reaction of the civil administration was tardy. No civil officials could be contacted on the night of 28 February-1 March 2002. The Chief Secretary was abroad and the officiating incumbent was a non-performer. The initial reception, briefing and provisioning of suitable transport and maps were inadequate and delayed. It required the intervention of the RM to nudge the civil administration into action.
 
            Officials never said ‘no’ but seldom lived up to commitments. The civil administration appeared to lack resolve to stem the violence. They were reluctant to impose / enforce curfew because it was politically unpopular. Curfew was selective, indicating partiality. The media widely highlighted the involvement of the political hierarchy in the riots. I had mentioned in my ‘Prologue’ that I will not reopen old wounds. I will be prudent and play the role of a despicable ‘Sarkari Mussalman.’
 
            I found the Para Military Forces (PMF) and Central Police Organisations (CPO) very ineffective. A total of 44 companies of PMF and CPO were available in Gujarat at that time. These forces, which should have acted as the middle rung of the ladder between the state police and the Armed Forces, should have been able to deal with the serious law and order situation. However, the manner of their deployment, absence of communal and control structure, and lack of professional commitment resulted in their gross under-utilisation.
 
            A total of 18 companies of BSF were employed, distributed in penny packets and under command of various police officials. Due to Op Parakram commitments, these were pooled training companies from various BSF battalions, without any command and control structure. The BSF hierarchy was content with an arrangement where their senior ranks were not saddled with responsibility and accountability. The BSF was reduced to performing normal police functions and imbibed the worst of police culture.

What 110 companies of the Para Military Forces and police could not do was done in 48 hours by six Army Battalions (24 companies). Sometimes I wonder why? The men and officers are the same with similar backgrounds. I am convinced that the police forces have become progressively communalized and un-representational. In case they had more members of the minority community it would shame them into taking a more fair and unbiased posture. What about the Army? Minority representation is even lower but there has never been a case of bias and the Army columns have always instilled confidence in all communities whenever committed on internal security duties.

             To compound the problems for the Army, BSF personnel also wore combat dress. This led to serious image misrepresentation and eroded the ‘shock effect’ of the Army. This is something the Central Government needs to take a serious note of. Every security organization has adopted disruptive pattern uniforms. The deterrent effect of the Army uniform has been nullified with the Army columns now having to carry placards declaring ‘ARMY’ – disgraceful and demeaning for the men in olive green uniform.
 
            A total of 63 companies of State Reserve Police were also available in Gujarat. The police attitude and, in most cases, their absence during crucial periods were inextricably linked to the community to which they belonged. The police, as has always happened to communal riots all over the country, was blatantly partisan and abdicated its responsibility of dealing with majority community mobs to the Army. It was observed that, on several occasions, the police melted away when faced with majority community rioters, ostensibly on the excuse that they were called away to deal with another situation elsewhere.
 
            The higher police hierarchy was totally politicized and virtually divided along political lines. A large number of assertive officers were occupying non-consequential appointments. A further blow to police morale was inflicted by the reported reshuffle and large scale transfers of police officers who had dealt firmly with rioters. There had been an erosion of authority of senior officers with undue importance being given to Station House Officers (Junior Commissioned Officer equivalent). These junior police officers had become a law unto themselves taking directions from ‘up’ instead of their chain of command.
 
            Small police outposts had no logistic backup and were dependent for meals on neighbouring majority pockets, which contributed to undermining neutrality. Over a period of time, the police hierarchy had become bloated and top heavy. There was a surfeit of Deputy Inspector Generals of Police (DIGs), Inspector Generals (IG), Additional DGs and DGs and very few middle-rung officers like Superintendents of Police (SP), Deputy Superintendents of Police (DSP), Assistant SPs to enforce security measures. This also skewed the working equations, to the detriment of the Army.
 
            Police stations were manned by IG-level officers and young army majors and Captains were in a quandary dealing with them. The worst blot on the police was targeting minority members of the force itself. Newspaper reports indicated that houses of the few minority community members residing in the police lines were burnt.
 
            The Home Guards, being part of the population of the area and even more politicized than the police, were totally ineffective. They were passive observers and, in many instances, the very instigators of violence. It was reported that most of the 25 Home Guard Commandants were primary members of right wing organisations. The services of 2,000 Home Guards were de-requisitioned by the state government on 9 April 2002. They were more of a nuisance.
 
            Restoration of the Rule of Law was the mandate given to the Army. The guideline before committing Army troops is to compel the civil administration to first employ all police resources at their disposal. The partisan attitude of the police, however, compelled the Army to be employed and sometimes take proactive measures. The civil magistrates accompanying the troops were most supportive of these actions taken to prevent wanton bloodshed.
 
What 110 companies of the Para Military Forces and police could not do was done in 48 hours by six Army Battalions (24 companies). Sometimes I wonder why? The men and officers are the same with similar backgrounds. I am convinced that the police forces have become progressively communalized and un-representational. In case they had more members of the minority community it would shame them into taking a more fair and unbiased posture. What about the Army? Minority representation is even lower but there has never been a case of bias and the Army columns have always instilled confidence in all communities whenever committed on internal security duties.
 
            I think it is the junior leadership. Young Army officers are conspicuous by their presence at the hotspot. I regret to say that middle-rank officers of the police, namely the SPs, DSPs, ASPs – already very few in number because of the top heavy organisations they have become – are conspicuous by their absence and are seen only when their political bosses are around. There is an urgent need to take police postings, at least of the Indian Police Service (IPS), out of the hands of local politicians. It is also important to keep the Army out of law enforcement duties. It is a strange quirk of reality that a District Magistrate can requisition the Army and not the Para Military Forces.
 
            The situation was quickly brought under control by firm and impartial action, with resolute use of minimum force. We had issued orders that arsonists caught in the act were to be shot. There were 19 instances where the Army columns were compelled to fire, killing two and wounding 24 rioters. Orders to shoot below the hip were enforced. A further number of casualties due to Army firing were carried away by the mobs and could not be accounted for.
 
            A question arose – why were most of the casualties members of one community. My explanation was that the soldier does not recognize the community of a person but can identify an arsonist and he deals with the situation as per orders. Large quantities of guns, country-made weapons, crude bombs and incendiary material were recovered and either destroyed or handed over to police. Other major tasks were burials and escorting affected persons of the minority community to safer places of refuge. Approximately 10,000 persons were evacuated from riot-affected areas by the troops. A large number of distress messages were being received to rescue family members of service personnel. These were promptly attended to.
 
            The Gujarat riots of 2002 were different from earlier riots. There were some striking dissimilarities: There were no attempts to convene Peace Committees. The inter-community chasm had become far too wide to allow this to happen. Earlier, riots were the handiwork of a handful of trouble-makers. This time rioting assumed the dimension of a mass activity, involving the middle class citizens too. The self-deluding belief that riots were the handiwork of the lumpen elements and outsiders no longer rang true. The most disturbing factor was the participation of women provocateurs. Women of the majority community, taking a cue from Jammu and Kashmir and the NE region, participated, for the first time, as instigators. The minority community too used women as ‘shields’ to discourage police incursions into minority pockets.
 
            There is an urgent necessity for a review of Legal Provisions and Methodology of Conduct of Operations to deal with large-scale riots. The earlier concept of ‘Aid to Civil authority’ envisaged dealing with ‘crowds’ and mobs’. The security environment has since deteriorated. The intensity of the carnage in Gujarat and the Army’s experience during Op Aman, in dealing with ‘intimidatory gangs’ operating with widespread public support and a passive and inactive police, necessitate a review of the legal provisions to give more powers to the Army when on internal security duties. Existing legal provisions are inadequate for the Army to eliminate violence, especially when there is apathy. The state governments should be compelled to first requisition Para Military Forces with their command and control structure. They should not be placed under control of the police. The use of the Army should be the weapon of the last resort.
 
It took two months of firm and even handed measures by the Army for passions to be brought under control and peace and sanity restored. My Division was de-inducted in two phases. The Divisional HQ and one Brigade moved back to Operation Parakram location by a rail and road move between 20 and 24 April 2002. The second Brigade de-inducted between 20 and 24 May leaving behind a surcharged situation but marked absence of violence. In the wake of the Army withdrawal, additional companies of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) were inducted into the state, especially in Ahmedabad. Cosmetic changes were also made to the police set-up.
 
            There were important lessons learnt from Op Aman. There is a need to strengthen the hands of the Army to enable it to act decisively, firmly and with dispatch against perpetrators of violence. This alone will negate criticism that disorder continues despite prolonged deployment of the Army. It will also discourage ‘ad lib’ requisition by the state government and facilitate rapid de-requisition. The existing legal provisions cater only for routine law and order problems that are dispersal of unlawful assembly. These are inadequate to deal with widespread ethnic conflict and need to be revised. Prolonged deployment diminishes the deterrent value of troops and in detrimental to their morale. Prolonged deployment also makes troops susceptible to extraneous, undesirable influences. If prolonged deployment becomes necessary, units must be ‘switched’ periodically.
 
            On our de-induction from Gujarat in April/May 2002, we found that the war clouds had dissipated. We got back to training which had been neglected. We also needed some rest and recuperation and laid special stress on games and afforestation of the environment. We planted thousands of trees, but on my return several years later I found that the locals had not looked after the valuable assets we had left behind. The stone ‘sanghars’ we had made to protect the trees had been used for construction of houses and stray cattle had eaten up all the trees we had planted. I also spent a lot of time visiting the villages of my regimental retired personnel. What a great experience it always was for all of us. (Photographs 61 and 62 on page nos. 131, 132)
 
            Since I had more leisure time on my hands, I compiled a piece titled ‘Prelude to the Charge- Ruminations of a Bison’. This was to relieve tensions and bottled up steam which had reached boiling point.
(See page no. 132)
 
Postscript:      After my retirement I was informed by a person of unimpeachable integrity and honesty and in the know of things that my command of troops during Op Aman had raised eyebrows. Questions were asked as to how a person bearing a Muslim name had been given the responsibility to quell communal riots. The reply given was that ‘The Army doesn’t look at names. It entrusts responsibility to the Commander of the formation committed.’ That apparently closed the issue. My formation did their job and because of them I was awarded a Sena Medal for restoring peace and sanity in Gujarat.
 
(Chapter 7 of the The Sarkari Mussalman, The Life and Travails of a Soldier Educationist
The Memoirs of Lt Gen Zameer Uddin Shah PVSM, SM, VSM (Retd)) reproduced here with the permission of the author)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
 
 
 
 
 

The post Bringing Peace to Gujarat in 2002, the Army Way appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Pic from the website of saafbaat.com
 

The post SIT report a cover up of 2002 Gujarat riots: former Army officer appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
Besides Amicus Curaie Raju Ramachandran’s Report to the SC clearly stated that Modi should stand trial for offences under Section 153(a), 153(b) and166 of the Indian Penal Code.
 
Key Points of May 2010 SIT Report Contrasted with 2012 Closure Report
 
I. Callous and Communal Mindset of Modi (chief minister and state home minister since 2002)
 

 
 
SIT Closure Report (2012): While the amicus finds the words spoken by the chief minister an offence, an incitement to violence and hatred against a particular section of the Indian people, in its closure report, the SIT finds that no criminal offence has been committed and recommends a closure of these allegations.

On the ‘action-reaction’ statement: “As per Modi’s version, he had not and would never justify any action or reaction by a mob against innocents. He had denied all allegations in this regard.” Zee TV never sent a copy of the interview, says the SIT. Their correspondent Sudhir Chaudhary told the SIT the Editors’ Guild report contained only excerpts and he did not have the original CD. He did recollect Modi’s reply that a mob “had reacted on account of private firing done by Jaffri, the SIT says. Chaudhary told the SIT Modi was of the view that he wanted neither action nor reaction. Modi reportedly said: “Godhra mein parson hua… jiski pratikriya ho rahi hai” but Chaudhary could not recount the exact sequence” (pgs 482-483, SIT Closure Report).
 
“As regards the public speech delivered at Becharaji, Mehsana district, on September 9, 2002, as a part of Gaurav Yatra, Modi has explained that the speech did not refer to any particular community or religion. According to  Modi, this was a political speech in which he has pointed out the increasing   population of India and had remarked that ‘can’t Gujarat implement family       planning?’ Modi has claimed that his speech has been distorted by some  interested elements who had misinterpreted the same to suit their designs. He has also stated that there were no riots or tension after his election speech. No    criminality has come on record in respect of this aspect of allegation” (p. 272, SIT Closure Report).
 
F. Modi Government Took No Steps to Stop Illegal Bandh. According to the SIT report of 2010 to the SC, the Gujarat government did not take any steps to stop the illegal bandh called by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad on 28 February 2002. On the contrary the BJP had supported the bandh. (Page 69, SIT Report to SC, May 2010)
(It is important to remember that it was Hindu mobs mobilised by the local VHP and BJP leaders in the name of bandhs that had carried out the horrific massacres at Naroda and Gulberg Society on 28 February 2002 and those all over the state over the next days. March 1 was a state wise bandh when massacres at Randhikpur-Sanjeli, Sardarpura, Sesan, Odh, Pandharwada and Kidiad among others took place)

G. Modi as Home Minister did not Act to prosecute Hate Speech. According to the SIT report of 2010 to the SC, despite detailed reports recommending strict action submitted to Modi by field officers of the State Intelligence Bureau, Modi as Home Minister failed to take action against a section of the print media that was publishing communally- inciting reports, inflaming base emotions. This had vitiated the communal situation further. (Page 79, SIT Report to SC, May 2010)

H. Modi as Home Minister responsible for Destruction of Crucial Records. The 2010 SIT report to the SC says “The Gujarat government has reportedly destroyed the police wireless communication of the period pertaining to the riots.” It adds, “No records, documentations or minutes of the crucial law and order meetings held by the government during the riots had been kept.” (Page 13, SIT Report to SC, May 2010)

II. SIT Confirms the Serious Allegation that Godhra Dead Bodies were handed over to Jaideep Patel of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad in an illegal and controversial move. Jaideep Patel of the VHP was also allowed to attend an official meeting at the Collectorate, Godhra.
In the 2010 SIT Report to the SC, the SIT says, “SIT inquiry revealed that there was in fact a discussion at Godhra on the final disposal of bodies of those killed in the Godhra carnage. This was during chief minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the town on the afternoon of February 27, 2002. It was held at the collectorate. It is not clear who all were present or consulted. Apart from the district collector, the presence at least of Gordhan Zadaphiya (MoS, home) and Jaideep Patel, VHP activist, has been confirmed…..”… (pgs 19-23, SIT Report to the SC, May 2010; pgs 2-3, Chairman’s Comments, SIT report to SC May 2010).

 SIT Closure Report 8.2.2012 also admits that Jaideep Patel transported the dead bodies to Ahmedabad
“The above facts would go to establish that though a letter had been addressed by mamlatdar, Godhra, to Patel of VHP….Nalvaya, mamlatdar, has acted in an irresponsible manner by issuing a letter in the name [of] Patel in token of having handed over the dead bodies which were case property and therefore the government of Gujarat is being requested to initiate departmental proceedings against him” (p. 463, Closure Report).
 
III. Narendra Modi did hold a meeting on 27 February 2002.
But Did he tell his officers to let Hindus vent their anger freely against Muslims? SIT claims there is no conclusive evidence but holds that no minutes of an Official law and Order Meeting (as is Standard Operational Procedure) were maintained.
In arriving at its conclusion that ‘there is no conclusive evidence’ of the criminal statement by Modi, the SIT has discarded the evidentiary statements of Justices PB Sawant, Hosbet Suresh, former MOS Revenue, GOG, Haren Pandya, Suresh Mehta, and Sanjiv Bhatt. It has accepted the evidence of those IAS and IPS officers who are co-accused in the Zakia Jafri Complaint dated 8.6.2006 that include former chief secretary Subha Rao, former ACS Home Ashok Narayan, former DGP, K Chakavarthi, former Principal Secretary, CMO, PK Mishra, former Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, PC Pande.

SIT Report to SC in May 2010 “In the light of the above, a law and order meeting was in fact held by Modi at his residence late in the evening of February 27. However, the allegation that chief minister instructed the chief secretary, DGP and other senior officials to allow the Hindu community to give vent to their anger on the minority Muslims in the wake of Godhra incident is not established” (p. 19,  SIT report to SC, May 2010).

IV. SIT Accepts that in a Controversial Move Ministers were stationed in the Ahmedabad City and State Control Rooms
 The SIT Report to the SC, May 2010, says, in an extremely “controversial” move, the government of Gujarat had placed two senior ministers — Ashok Bhatt and IK Jadeja — in the Ahmedabad city police control room and the state police control room during the riots. The SIT chairman comments that the two ministers were positioned in the control rooms with “no definite charter”, fuelling the speculation that they “had been placed to interfere in police work and give wrongful decisions to the field officers”. “The fact that he (Modi) was the cabinet minister for Home would heighten the suspicion that this decision had his blessings.” (Page 12 of chairman’s comments in SIT report to SC, May 2010)
(It is to be noted that Ashok Bhatt’s cell phone analysis showed that he was in touch with VHP leader Jaideep Patel, a key conspirator of the Naroda Gaon and Naroda Patiya massacre, and with Gordhan Zadaphia, the then minister of state for home and who is now seen by the SIT as a major culprit of the Ahmedabad massacres.)

SIT Closure Report (8.2.2012) also admits that Ministers were stationed in the Control Rooms, Ahmedabad and State but says it was not a “significant” presence
“Therefore the allegation that the two ministers were positioned in the state control room and Ahmedabad city police control room by the chief minister is not established. Significantly, IK Jadeja remained at state police headquarters for two-three hours as per his own admission but did not interfere in the police functioning. Late Ashok Bhatt’s presence in the city police headquarters on the relevant day, if any, was very negligible and it cannot be termed of any material value. In the absence of documentary/oral evidence of any directions given by these two ministers to police officials, it cannot be said at this stage that they conspired in the perpetration of riots or did not take any action to control the riots” (pgs 474-475, SIT Closure Report, 8.2.2012).
 
V. Criminally Negligent Actions by Joint CP Tandon and SCP PB Gondia who were subsequently rewarded by the Modi government for their criminality.
The former Ahmedabad joint commissioner of police MK Tandon, in whose area around 200 Muslims were killed, has been found guilty of deliberate dereliction of duty. (Post the riots, however, far from being censored, he got one lucrative posting after another and retired as additional director general of police in June 2007.) His junior, former deputy commissioner of police PK Gondia, has also been found guilty of willfully allowing the massacres. The SIT says that if the two had just carried out their duty hundreds of Muslims could have been saved. (Pages 48-50 of the SIT Report to the SC, May 2010) Neither of these officers was held accountable by the Modi government. The first SIT report recommended further investigation as has been detailed at Annexure 2.**
 
Even the SIT closure report dated 8.2.2012 holds that
The closure report is forced to concede that the actions of Tandon and Gondia were questionable. However, in its view, a simple departmental inquiry was all that was called for. Going back on its own earlier findings, the SIT now also exonerates Tandon and Gondia for being in close telephonic contact with two accused persons: Dr Mayaben Kodnani and Shri Jaideep Patel (p. 496, Closure Report, dated 8.2.2012).
 “The conduct of Tandon and Gondia was unprofessional and unbecoming of senior police officers.” However, “the basic requirements for prosecution under the above Section (304A) are that the acts (including omission) must be rash or negligent… Considering all the circumstances, evidence on record and the defence available with the suspect police officers (Tandon and Gondia), it may not be possible to prosecute them for the offence under Section 304A as proposed by amicus curiae…” (pgs 499-503, Closure Report, 8.2.2012).
 
VI. SIT found evidence against Zadaphiya, MOS Home
The SIT has also found evidence against the then minister of state for home Gordhan Zadaphia (who was reporting directly to Modi) for his complicity in the riots. Another BJP minister Mayaben Kodnani has already been booked in the Naroda Patiya massacre. (Pages 168-169, SIT Report to the SC, 2010)

 
VII. Patently Partisan Investigations by Gujarat Police Top Cops to Shield Ministers and VHP men and Women
The SIT accepted the allegation that the state police had carried out patently shoddy investigations in the Naroda Patiya and Gulberg Society massacre cases. It deliberately overlooked the cell phone records of Sangh Parivar members and BJP leaders involved in the riots — prominent among them were the Gujarat VHP president Jaideep Patel and BJP minister Maya Kodnani. “If these records had been analysed and used as evidence, it could have established their complicity.” (SIT report to SC, May 2010, Pages 101-105)
 
VIII. Modi Rewarded the Officers who Acted Illegally and Punished those who Acted Lawfully
Upright officers penalised
The 2010 SIT to the SC report affirms that police officers who took a neutral stand during the riots and prevented massacres were transferred by the Gujarat government to insignificant postings. SIT’s Chairman Raghavan has termed these transfers “questionable” since “they came immediately after incidents in which the officers concerned were known to have antagonised ruling party men”. (Pages 7-8 of chairman’s comments in SIT Report to SC, May 2010)
The upright officers who were penalised for performing their constitutional duty include IPS officers Rahul Sharma, Vivek Srivastava, Himanshu Bhatt and Satishchandra Verma.
“It is true that there were a few such transfers which were in fact questionable, especially because they came immediately after incidents in which the officers concerned had known to have antagonised ruling party men… Neither police officer would however admit he had been victimised (pgs 32-36, Report to SC dated May 2010, and p. 8, Chairman’s Comments to SC, May 2010).

Guilty cops rewarded
The SIT report dated May 2010 to the SC admits the allegation that police officers who allowed riots to fester were rewarded with lucrative postings.

• MK Tandon, who was the joint commissioner of police of Sector II, Ahmedabad, in 2002 and in whose jurisdiction more than 200 Muslims were butchered to death, was given the important post of inspector-general (IG), Surat range, soon after the riots. In July 2005 he was appointed to the post of ADGP (law and order) at the state police headquarters, a position with statewide jurisdiction. Tandon retired from the same position.
• PB Gondia, deputy to Tandon, was DCP, Zone IV, at the time. He was promoted to the powerful post of IGP, State CID, and now enjoys the post of joint director, civil defence.
• In addition to these police officers, there were other controversial bureaucrats and policemen who have remained high in the favour of the government despite their black track records. Among them are G. Subbarao (then chief secretary); Ashok Narayan (then ACS, home); PK Mishra (then PS to Modi); PC Pande (then CP, Ahmedabad city); Deepak Swaroop (then IGP, Vadodara range); K. Nityanandam (then secretary, home); Rakesh Asthana (then IG and currently CP, Surat city) and DG Vanzara (now in jail for staging encounter killings).

 
IX. Partisan prosecutors appointed.  The SIT 2010 Report to the SC confirms that the government appointed VHP and RSS-affiliated advocates as public prosecutors in sensitive riot cases. The report states: “It appears that the political affiliation of the advocates did weigh with the government for the appointment of public prosecutors.” (Page 77 of the SIT report to the SC, May 2010) The SIT chairman (RK Raghavan) further comments that “it has been found that a few of the past appointees were in fact politically connected, either to the ruling party or organisations sympathetic to it.” (Page 10 of chairman’s comments to SIT report to SC, May 2010)) ##
“It appears that the political affiliation of the advocates did weigh with the government for the appointment of public prosecutors” (p. 77, SIT Report to the SC, May 2010). The allegation is partly substantiated” (p. 238, SIT Report to SC May 2010). Also, “It has been found that a few of the past appointees were in fact politically connected, either to the ruling party or organisations sympathetic to it” (p. 10, Chairman’s Comments, SIT report, May 2010). Details of the partisan appointments are at Page 157 of the SIT Report to the SC and annexed here in Annexure 3.
 
X. Gujarat Government Misled the Chief Election Commission. The SIT Report of 2010 to the SC also asserts that in August 2002, in a bid to ensure an early Assembly election, top officials of the Modi government misled the Central Election Commission by presenting a picture of normalcy when the state was still simmering with communal tension. (Page 79 to 86, SIT Report to SC, May 2010).  (The BJP had prematurely dissolved the Assembly on 19 August 2002, nine months before the expiry of the five-year term, and demanded an early election. The BJP clearly wanted to take electoral advantage of the communal polarisation.)
 
SIT Reports on Gujarat 2002 are available at cjp.org.in
 

1. SIT Preliminary Report, 12.5.2010 (in SLP 1088/2008, Zakia Jafri & CJP versus State of Gujarat) 
2. Chairman RK Raghavan’s Comments to May 2010 report  
3. Closure Report dated 8.2.2012

and below

1. Interim Report of Shri Raju Ramachandran dated 20.1.2011 (pdf)
2. Final Report dated 25.07.2011 (pdf) 

 
3. SIT Closure Report dated 8.2.2012
Volume I
(PAGES     1-100      101-200      201-270)

VOLUME II  
(PAGES     271-370   371-458    459-541)

ZAKIA JAFRI Protest Petition
Protest Petition PART (I)
Protest Petition PART (II)

The post Propaganda Behind the Clean Chit to Modi appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image Courtesy: Facebook/Aseem Sawhney

Some measure of outrage has been expressed at the chilling appointment of a lawyer who represented the main accused in the gang-rape, torture and killing of an eight-year-old girl in Jammu and Kashmir’s Kathua to a government post. Aseem Sawney has been appointed additional Advocate General of the state. The state is now under Governor’s rule and therefore responsibility, or blame, needs to be pinned on to the Centre for this act.
 
This is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that the post of law officer of the state government has been subverted by the powers that be. Levels of subversion have meant that the independence and integrity of public prosecutors have often been compromised.
 
In Gujarat, after the genocidal carnage of 2002, the subversion was at its worst. The role of the public prosecutor was truly subverted by the state, with persons with distinct allegiance to the outfits who perpetrated the hatred and violence against the minorities being appointed public prosecutors! These officers then did not oppose the bail of those accused of mass, targeted crimes and worse, proceeded to subvert trials. The suo motu Inquiry by the National Human Rights Commission headed by former chief justice, JS Verma pointed to the subversion of the post of public prosecutor in the state.

Coming back to Jammu and the Kathua rape case, the lawyer claims he is not appearing in the Kathua case anymore. A government role for a man who defended the Kathua accused has provoked sharp reactions. Former chief minister, Ms Mufti today targeted her former alliance partner in tweets. The former Chief Minister said it was “ironic” that the appointment had been made on the World Day for International Justice.

“Rewarding those who defend alleged murderers & rapists is abhorrent & a shocking violation of the spirit of justice. Such a move will only serve to encourage the rape culture rampant in our society. Expect the @jandkgovernor to intervene,” she posted.
The little girl belonging to the Muslim Backerwal nomads, was kidnapped in the first week of January, kept in a small local temple, drugged, starved and repeatedly raped for days. She was finally strangled and her head was bashed in with a rock, but only after one of the men begged to be allowed to rape her one last time.

After eight people were arrested, including retired government official Sanji Ram, senior BJP leaders in the state, including lawmakers, openly backed the accused and called for a CBI inquiry to prove their innocence. The men are now being tried in Pathankot in Punjab.

Subversion of the criminal justice system in Gujarat: Role of the public prosecutor
Since 2003, when Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) took up first, the Best Bakery case, and thereafter intervened in the NHRC case (concerning trials that are now being reinvestigated by the SIT), it has highlighted the subversion and dubious functioning of the public prosecutor in Gujarat. In detailed affidavits submitted to the apex court between October 2003 and May 2007, CJP has constantly exposed the designs of the state of Gujarat in deliberately subverting the position of public prosecutor by appointing men who had overt sympathies with the ideology of the RSS and the BJP. These lawyers, instead of functioning as officers of the courts to safeguard the Indian Constitution, served the interests of the ruling party and the accused. They assisted courts in granting hasty bail to mass murderers within months of the crime.

Chetan Shah, Ahmedabad. First appointed public prosecutor in the Gulberg Society massacre case in 2003, he had previously appeared for the accused in this and the Naroda massacre cases. Witnesses made an application to the then state law minister, Ashok Bhatt, in September 2003, which was also produced before the apex court. Shah was replaced by his junior, VP Atre. Thereafter he appeared for the accused in the Naroda Patiya case.

During the Supreme Court proceedings, Harish Salve, amicus curiae, had, in his written submissions dated March 22, 2007 filed in the Supreme Court, stated that “the state of Gujarat does not have significant reply to the allegations (made by victim survivors and CJP) that the appointment of public prosecutors was done in a manner inconsistent with the rights of the victims under Article 21 (right to life) and in breach of the duty cast upon the state under the Code of Criminal Procedure.”

Vinod Gajjar, Ahmedabad. He was appointed by the state of Gujarat in 2006 to appear on its behalf before Judge ML Mehta, additional sessions judge, Delhi, who was appointed by the Supreme Court to scrutinise the voluminous case records in the NHRC case. Gajjar had previously appeared for some of those accused in the Gulberg Society massacre case.

Dilip Trivedi, Mehsana. He was (and probably still is) the general secretary of the state VHP and heads the organisation’s 12-member lawyers’ panel. He appeared for the state in matters relating to the Sardarpura carnage, in which 33 persons were burnt alive on March 1, 2002, where all 46 accused were released on bail. (A day after they were released some of them allegedly attacked a mosque). When the witness complainants filed an application in the Gujarat high court objecting to Trivedi’s role, additional public prosecutor, SJ Dave said the government would consider the appointment of a special public prosecutor but it would not make a firm commitment. Trivedi was removed from the Deepda Darwaja case (one of the two major incidents in Mehsana district) and replaced with Rajendra Darji. Thereafter, after the Supreme Court’s monitoring of the trial, he was removed.

Bharat Bhatt, Sabarkantha. He was the public prosecutor in 2002 but he was also the VHP’s district president. He is on record as saying that he has been doing his best to help the accused in 2002 riot-related cases (in the Tehelka exposé following its sting ‘Operation Kalank’).
Avadhoot Sumant, Vadodara. In early August 2003 he had demanded that the Gujarat high court initiate contempt proceedings against the NHRC for calling the Best Bakery case verdict of July 2003 a miscarriage of justice. Three days after his public declaration to this effect, Sumant was appointed assistant public prosecutor in the case.

Sanjay Bhatt Vyas, Vadodara. Vadodara’s assistant public prosecutor is the nephew of Ajay Joshi, VHP’s city unit president in 2003. An advocate himself, Joshi was a defence counsel in the Best Bakery case.

Piyush Gandhi, Panchmahal. The president of Panchmahal’s district VHP unit in 2002-03 and a member of the VHP’s lawyers’ panel appeared as public prosecutor in the district’s carnage cases and obtained acquittals in three trials between July and November 2002.

Raghuvir Pandya, Vadodara. As prosecutor for the city police in 1996, he contested elections to the Manjalpur Corporation from Ward 20, Kesariya (south), Vadodara, on a BJP ticket. During the Best Bakery trial in April-May 2003, before the fast track court of Judge HU Mahida, all matters were handled by the then public prosecutor, Mr Gupta. But at the time of interrogation of witnesses (who had turned hostile) Raghuvir Pandya was suddenly appointed public prosecutor.

HM Dhruva. A sudden and recent appointment to the SIT panel of prosecutors in April 2009, as reported in The Indian Express, Ahmedabad. Dhruva previously appeared as public prosecutor when the Godhra train fire case was being tried under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) and where, during proceedings, he demonstrated a clear bias against the accused. According to information received through a Right to Information (RTI) application filed in 2006-07, Dhruva, as special public prosecutor in one of the Godhra cases, officially received fees amounting to more than Rs 92 lakh, eight or nine times what was earned by prosecutors in other 2002 trials. Thereafter Dhruv appeared as defence lawyer for the Sardarpura accused.

Arvind Pandya, Ahmedabad. The state government’s counsel before the Nanavati-Shah Commission, who cast aspersions on the judges. According to him, Nanavati is after money and Shah is sympathetic to “them” (Tehelka, ‘Operation Kalank’).

Following the further investigations directed by the Supreme Court (in 2008), a different kind of subversion was resorted to. Lawyers for the defence, that is the accused in the mass carnage trials (Sardarpura, Naroda Patiya, Naroda Gaam, Gulberg, deepda Darwaza) were indirectly rewarded by giving them plum legal postings in other cases. The lawyer for the accused in the Gulberg case, Mitesh Amin is today the Gujarat state’s public prosecutor in the High Court.

The post Appointing Lawyers with Tainted Credentials as Law Officers began in Gujarat: 2002 appeared first on SabrangIndia.