“Now, after nearly two years of the SIT saying that these records, as per the government of Gujarat’s version, are destroyed, you mentioned when I (Teesta Setalvad) brought this to your attention to be recorded in my 161 statement, that then commissioner of police PC Pande has, after the hon’ble court directed the SIT to go into the report filed by the amicus curiae, thereafter produced the entire documentary record that he had scanned and kept aside before they were ‘destroyed’! You also mentioned that there was 3,500 pages of such evidence which the SIT is now, after nearly two years of the inquiry, examining.

We wish to express, as co-petitioners and co-complainants, our distress and consternation at what we believe is a belated attempt by Shri Pande to save his skin or those of his political bosses, as all this while – including in the report submitted by yourself and Shri Raghavan to the hon’ble Supreme Court – you have maintained that these records have been destroyed. Shri Pande has, we have been given to understand, twice before been examined by the SIT in the Zakiya matter, between May 2009 and May 2010. Surely in the 12-month period he ought to have produced this record that he had so carefully scanned and preserved?

It may be assumed that if the inquiry had not reached this stage i.e. if the hon’ble Supreme Court had not impelled or compelled the SIT to go further, Shri Pande’s sudden and generous manoeuvre would have never happened, that is, the “destroyed” records would have remained buried!

Sir, We were particularly disturbed by your interpretation of the actions of Shri Pande, which seemed to be interpreted as his astute generosity (Shri Pande’s) in actually scanning and producing these records at this belated stage. The following questions arise that we wish to place specifically before you:

1. The timing of the “destroyed” records “reappearing” in the action of Shri PC Pande suddenly handing over the scanned CD of all destroyed documents to you post-March 15, 2011 i.e. the last directions of the hon’ble Supreme Court.
2. Since Shri Pande’s role of collusion in the conspiracy has been specifically alleged, we at least cannot see this either as a stray or innocent act and would therefore urge that a hard, objective inquiry into the previous evasion and suppression of evidence, and thereafter the sudden disclosure, takes place and offences against Shri PC Pande are also registered for the earlier suppression and subsequent disclosure.
3. When a senior officer like Shri Pande states that records are destroyed, in the preliminary inquiry, and thereafter turns up with the vanished documents, what are we to make of this? Similarly, we believe that videos will turn up.
4. Shri Pande’s role in the overall conspiracy and his subsequently being rewarded for his silence and suppression make him liable to be inquired into. His personal assets and accounts and those of his family members as also the assets and accounts of other IPS and IAS officials who have been favoured by the government of Gujarat need to be part of the inquiry.
5. We thought it imperative that this matter be placed on record…

I would like to end by stating that the fresh revelations by Shri Pande amount to an effort by a highly placed officer of not merely attempting a cover-up of his suppression of crucial records for nine-plus years but subverting the inquiries into various cases by not making available these records in the individual trials and thereby committing grave contempt of the judicial process. We would like to state that though partial records in the Gulberg cases (police control room and fire brigade, etc) were made available, this happened only after applications under 173(8) were filed by witnesses and did not logically form part of the charge sheet as they should have done from the very beginning. Why were Shri Pande and other senior officials suppressing these records? Allegations of high-level involvement and complicity have been made by victim survivors since immediately after the incidents. Was this suppression related to protection of the mighty and powerful?”

The SIT in 2010

“The Gujarat government has reportedly destroyed the police wireless communication of the period pertaining to the riots… No records, documentations or minutes of the crucial law and order meetings held by the government during the riots had been kept” (p. 13 of the Preliminary Inquiry Report).

The SIT makes this observation but recommends no action for this criminal act.
 

 
Archived from Communalism Combat, April-May 2012. Year 18, No.165 – Introduction, Gujarat 2002

The post Destroyed records resurface appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On June 8, 2006 when Zakiya Ahsan Jaffri, as-sisted by Mumbai-based Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), filed a mammoth 119-page complaint supported by 2,000 pages of documentary evidence, little did she know – or really expect – that the Supreme Court of India would actually conduct an investigation under its watch through a Special Investigation Team (SIT) and thereafter ensure through a detailed order that her complaint would be treated as an FIR and a charge sheet also be filed. In the event that the SIT files a closure report, the petitioners’ right to a protest petition has been allowed.

The course of the Supreme Court-monitored investigations over a one-year period revealed serious lacunae in the functioning of the SIT, including the SIT chairman’s attempt at exonerating Narendra Modi. The chairman’s efforts were checked by the report of his own investigating officer (IO), AK Malhotra, and the independent assessment provided by the amicus curiae in the matter, Raju Ramachandran. After Ramachandran submitted his 10-page preliminary note in January 2011, the Supreme Court had, in March 2011, directed the SIT to reassess its own findings submitted 10 months earlier.

If nothing else, the verdict of the Supreme Court delivered on September 12, 2011 is a huge victory for the rule of law and for those of us who believe in due process and transparency and accountability in governance.

While not wasting valuable column space on the banal attempts by Modi and his party to give himself, and themselves, a clean chit, it is worth looking carefully at paragraphs 8 and 9 of the order (uploaded on the CJP website, www.cjponline.org) which clearly state that under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the complaint – now to be treated as a de facto FIR – will, along with all relevant investigation papers, first be placed before a regular magistrate’s court and then, if so deemed, be committed to the court already hearing the Gulberg Society case. The task will be to file a substantive, expanded charge sheet against Modi and 61 others. What is more, according to the law, and a specific direction of the Supreme Court in this order, the complainants will be given a chance at every stage – in case the SIT baulks again, which is not unlikely, or the judge decides to exclude one or more individuals from among those named as accused – to be heard and carry their appeal right up to the Supreme Court.

The process will no doubt be arduous. And in the current climate where communalism and mass crimes do not commandeer national outrage as, say money matters in the 2G spectrum scam do, it will take every bit of effort to ensure that the battle, bravely fought, reaches an effective conclusion. For any one of the 20-odd magistrates before whom the SIT report/charge sheet could be placed, it will be a definitive test of independence and integrity.

Will a magistrate sitting in Ahmedabad be able to withstand the pressure, vitriol and vindictiveness of Modi’s administration? Difficult though it may be to keep the faith, at such a time we would do well to remember Judge SP Tamang, the Ahmedabad metropolitan magistrate inquiring into the Ishrat Jahan case, who, on September 7, 2009, submitted an exemplary report against all odds. The report indicted a number of police officers, including the then Ahmedabad police commissioner, for the murder in 2004 of the Mumbra-based teenager and three others that Modi and the central government had cynically made out to be hardened terrorists.

Contrary to popular belief, the Supreme Court verdict in the Zakiya Jaffri-CJP case exceeds the petitioners’ demands. While the now historic petition No. SLP 1088/2008 sought the registration of an FIR against Modi and 61 others, the Supreme Court order in fact goes several steps further, taking the criminal matter to the committal stage where cognisance will be taken, and prosecution begun, of the complaint.

Not surprisingly, the facts are at variance with the pernicious propaganda spread by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in this regard. Their views were unfortunately echoed on many of India’s television channels, raising questions about the media’s competence as well as its allegiances. Many in the broadcast media cheerfully announced a ‘clean chit’ for Modi early in the morning of September 12 and then tempered their telecasts as initial interviews with Tanvir Jaffri (son of Zakiya and the late Ahsan Jaffri) and Teesta Setalvad, and print interviews with amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran over the next few days, stated to the contrary. Far from being an exoneration of Modi and company, the recent judgement demonstrates that the apex court finds merit in the complaint and has now directed a lower court to take it forward as procedures allow.

The petitioners have never pleaded that the Supreme Court should directly indict Modi. They have never said and do not believe that anyone should be convicted without due process of law, hanged as they are so easily in RSS-desired Taliban-style kangaroo courts. They would also like to state for the record that they do not believe in the death penalty for anyone, not even a gun-wielding terrorist or a Narendra Modi who calculatedly employed all the resources at his command to paralyse his administration while murder stalked the streets. Apart from conspiracy to commit murder, other serious charges in the complaint include the deliberate efforts to doctor investigations through faulty registration of FIRs, the appointment of incompetent and ideologically biased public prosecutors, the destruction of evidence and terrorising witnesses into turning hostile.

All this and more is the subject matter of the criminal complaint filed in 2006. The only one of its kind in India, it is the first criminal complaint related to communal violence that goes beyond indicting individuals responsible for acts of violence to trace the outbreak of violence further, drawing links between the chief minister, his cabinet colleagues, leaders of empathetic political right-wing outfits and officials of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and the Indian Police Service (IPS) who bowed to the murderous designs of their political boss.

We must not allow ourselves to forget what Gujarat 2002 was about. Over 300 well-orchestrated incidents of violence spread across 19 of Gujarat’s 25 districts, the calculated murder of 2,500 innocents in reprisal killings, several instances of daylight rape, the destruction of Muslim-owned property worth Rs 4,000 crore and the destruction of 270 dargahs and masjids. Almost or just as bad as the violence itself is the deliberate subversion of justice, the destruction of evidence and the intimidation and influencing of witnesses.

The conclusion of the case so doggedly fought by Zakiya Ahsan Jaffri and Citizens for Justice and Peace will be a litmus test for the Indian system, to establish whether it has the courage to punish those responsible for some of its bleakest hours.

A unique trajectory

After the Gujarat police refused to entertain their complaint in June 2006, the petitioners moved the Gujarat high court for registration of an FIR against 62 persons and transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The high court dismissed their petition in November 2007. However, the petitioners efforts were subsequently rewarded when the Supreme Court took cognisance of the case on March 3, 2008. A little over a year later, on April 27, 2009, the Supreme Court handed over the investigation not to the CBI but to the Special Investigation Team headed by former CBI chief RK Raghavan, which had been appointed by the apex court 13 months earlier to reinvestigate nine major Gujarat carnage cases.

In May 2009, Communalism Combat had, in its cover story ‘The Accused’, detailed critical elements of this complaint which was substantively different from that of the Gulberg Society case, one of the nine major carnage cases being reinvestigated by the SIT. Yet both the SIT and the state of Gujarat kept confusing the two cases. The primary distinction between the carnage cases and this complaint is the list of accused and the offences.

The accused in the complaint of June 8, 2006 (now treated as an FIR by the Supreme Court) are: the chief minister, Narendra Modi, 11 state cabinet ministers, three MLAs, three members of the ruling party in the state, three office-bearers and three members of extremist right-wing organisations and 38 high-ranking police officers and bureaucrats, beginning with the director general of police, Gujarat.

The progress of this case has been marked by high drama and behind-the-scenes subterfuge. However, it received scant attention until January 20, 2011 when the newly appointed amicus curiae, Raju Ramachandran, submitted a preliminary note to the Supreme Court which resulted in the court issuing directions to the SIT to reassess its findings. Until then, the media seemed uninterested in the proceedings, choosing to overlook the additional substantive evidence that the petitioners had regularly filed in support of their original complaint. The January 2011 order was the first sign that the SIT’s pathetic attempts to exonerate Modi and others from prosecution, in spite of the investigations carried out by its own IO, AK Malhotra, would not be accepted by the court.

Within days of the amicus curiae’s report being submitted to the Supreme Court and the court’s directions in the matter, Rahul Sharma, a serving IPS officer whose upright testimonies had allowed crucial evidence to enter the public domain, was served with a show-cause notice by a vindictive Narendra Modi-led Gujarat government. The notice was served on February 4, 2011. Sharma was later charge-sheeted on August 13, 2011 for speaking to the Supreme Court-appointed SIT and the state-appointed Nanavati-Shah Commission (now the Nanavati-Mehta Commission). It was Rahul Sharma’s deposition before the Nanavati-Shah Commission in 2004, when he made available a CD containing vital cellphone call records, that enabled CJP to analyse this data and place it before the commission and the courts.

Each hearing of this and related cases in the Supreme Court was punctuated by dubious attempts by the state of Gujarat and even the SIT to mislead the court and malign the petitioners – especially after October 2009 when CJP questioned the quality of the investigations being conducted by the SIT in the nine carnage cases. CJP secretary Teesta Setalvad was a specific target.
​

In a report to the apex court during hearings held in September-October 2010, the SIT mentioned a routine call made by Setalvad to the public prosecutor in the Gulberg Society case, RC Kodekar, who claimed that she had tried to threaten him. In January 2011, during the hearing of the matter pertaining to the carnage cases, the amicus curiae in that matter, Harish Salve, pointed out correspondence between CJP and the Geneva-based United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the threats received by senior advocate SM Vohra, counsel for the victims in the Gulberg case. Unfortunate observations by the bench on this matter attracted media publicity which worked to the advantage of a state responsible for mass crimes and determined to target those who stood up against it.

During this period a national daily was also used, on or about the date of every hearing, to project complete victory for the Modi government. On December 3, 2010, the date of the Supreme Court hearing in the Gujarat 2002 matters, as in January 2011, blatant efforts were made by an accused and cornered Gujarat government to manipulate sections of the media (‘SIT clears Narendra Modi of wilfully allowing post-Godhra riots’, The Times of India, December 3, 2010).

And yet, through 2010, when the SIT investigations were underway, it was reports in The Times of India and The Hindu that drew attention to the 15 phone calls made between the chief minister’s office/secretariat and the Ahmedabad police commissioner, PC Pande, between 11 a.m. and 4 p.m. on February 28, 2002, significant because they were made around the same time that the massacres at Naroda Patiya and Gulberg Society were taking place even as the police did nothing. CJP submitted detailed analyses of important phone call records to the Nanavati-Shah Commission in May 2010 (reported in Communalism Combat’s cover story, ‘Dial M for Massacre’, in June 2010) and to the Supreme Court in July 2011.

But finally, it was the exhaustive coverage by Tehelka magazine, which scooped the SIT report and contrasted this with evidence that CJP had gathered and submitted to the court, in two important stories (‘Here’s the smoking gun’, February 12, 2011, and ‘I was there. Narendra Modi said let the people vent their anger’, February 19, 2011), that impacted on the entire discourse. Television channels were now forced to look at the issues that Jaffri and CJP had raised over the past five years.

A subsequent report by Tehelka, ‘Whose Amicus is Harish Salve?’, in its March 12, 2011 issue exposed that the conduct of senior lawyer Harish Salve as amicus curiae in the Gujarat carnage cases gave rise to a conflict of interest. The story revealed that even while he was amicus curiae in the crucial mass murder cases before the Supreme Court, Salve continued to lobby the Gujarat government for projects for his wealthy corporate client, Eros Energy (Kishore Lulla). Incidentally, RK Raghavan, chairperson of the Supreme Court-appointed SIT, happens to be a corporate security adviser at a Tata company.

In April 2011 events took another dramatic turn as the much publicised affidavit of deputy inspector-general of police Sanjiv Bhatt, filed before the Supreme Court, drew widespread attention to the illegal instructions issued at a secret meeting held by Modi on February 27, 2002 – almost nine years after details of this meeting were first revealed in Crime Against Humanity, the report of the Concerned Citizens Tribunal – Gujarat 2002. In the affidavit, submitted directly to the Supreme Court registry and amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran, Bhatt detailed among other things how his testimony before the SIT in November 2009 and early 2010 had been leaked to the state government and led to intimidation from his superiors. This provided further confirmation of the petitioners’ suspicions about the conduct and integrity of the SIT.

In March 2011 the SIT had recorded a subsequent, formal statement from Bhatt under Section 161 of the CrPC. With this, Bhatt also submitted voluminous documents from the State Intelligence Bureau (SIB), including material that would prove that Modi was personally aware of the impending attack on Gulberg Society on the morning of February 28, 2002 when he deliberately did not intervene but instead allowed the mobs to attack former parliamentarian Ahsan Jaffri and others. After first informing OP Singh, Modi’s personal assistant (PA), Bhatt is stated to have personally informed the chief minister of the worsening situation at Gulberg Society.

Sanjiv Bhatt was suspended from service on August 8, 2011 and then charge-sheeted on September 18 even as Narendra Modi was fasting for ‘sadbhavna’, or communal harmony! On Friday, September 30, he was arrested on apparently trumped-up charges.

Doubts have been raised about the authenticity of Bhatt’s disclosures ever since his dramatic and relatively late appearance in public view. In response to this, we would like to point out that Sanjiv Bhatt was in fact cited as a witness by the petitioners in their original complaint precisely because his name figured extensively in the SIB records available to them.

Bearing testimony

Extracts from the complaint

List of witnesses:

1. KC Kapoor, in 2006, principal secretary, home; 2. Manoj D. Antani, in 2002, superintendent of police (SP), Bharuch; 3. AS Gehlot, in 2002, SP, Mehsana; 4. Vivek Srivastava, in 2002, SP, Kutch; 5. Himanshu Bhatt, in 2002, SP, Banaskantha; 6. Piyush Patel, in 2002, deputy commissioner of police (DCP), Vadodara; 7. Maniram, in 2002, additional director general of police (ADGP), law and order; 8. Vinod Mall, in 2002, SP, Surendranagar; 9. Sanjiv Bhatt, in 2002, SP, security, State Intelligence Bureau; 10. Jayanti Ravi, in 2002, collector, Panchmahal; 11. Neerja Gotru, in 2003, special investigating officer assigned to reopen investigations in some riot-related cases; 12. Rahul Sharma, in 2002, SP, Bhavnagar; 13. RB Sreekumar, in 2002, ADGP, intelligence.

In their complaint, the petitioners have also pointed out that Modi held several secret, undocumented meetings during that period at which many witnesses were present, who should also be examined and interrogated for information.

The superintendents of police in the districts of Mehsana, Banaskantha, Sabarkantha, Patan, Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad rural, Anand, Kheda, Vadodara rural, Godhra and Dahod, where mass killings were reported during the riots, all need to be specifically interrogated for their roles as also their failure to document illegal and unconstitutional instructions from the chief minister and other representatives of the state government.

Archived from Communalism Combat, Sept.-October 2011,Year 18, No.160 – Cover Story

The post Still Under Fire appeared first on SabrangIndia.

CJP condemns the arrest of Sanjiv Bhatt

Citizens for Justice and Peace strongly condemns the vindictive action of the Gujarat government in arresting Sanjiv Bhatt, senior IPS officer, in an action that is nothing short of an attempt to intimidate an important witness in the Zakiya Ahsan Jaffri and CJP criminal complaint against chief minister Narendra Modi and 61 others. This action of the Gujarat police, under the direct instructions of the state’s home minister – Narendra Modi, amounts to tampering with evidence and direct intimidation of a key witness. It is also a cheap attempt to slur his character and standing.

Key issues need to be raised here. One, that through his affidavit before the hon’ble Supreme Court dated April 2011 he had testified to criminal and unconstitutional instructions being issued by Modi at a late-night meeting on February 27, 2002, the day of the Godhra incident. In his statements before the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team, he also gave documentary data about Modi’s abdication of responsibility on February 28, 2002, the day attacks on Gulberg Society and Naroda Patiya in Ahmedabad were in full swing. Finally, last but not least, in an affidavit filed before the Gujarat high court recently, Bhatt had even mentioned that both Modi and Amit Shah, former minister of state for home, had tried to intimidate and pressurise him into not giving facts and evidence in the possession of the State Intelligence Bureau, related to the assassination of former minister of state for revenue, Haren Pandya. The CBI investigation into the Pandya assassination has recently been severely criticised by the Gujarat high court.

Most critically, Bhatt had challenged this FIR for which he was arrested, through writ petition 135/2011 in the Supreme Court. (This criminal complaint is allegedly a fabricated FIR filed in June 2011 by KD Panth, his former driver, alleging that Bhatt had pressurised him into filing an affidavit to support the officer’s claim that he was present at the meeting held at the chief minister’s residence on February 27, 2002). The Supreme Court had issued notice to the Gujarat government on July 29, 2011. This hasty and vindictive, even desperate, action of the Gujarat police, while the matter is under consideration by the Supreme Court, raises serious issues of contempt of the highest court, due process and, most importantly, intimidating a witness critical to a trial to ensure public justice. With our matter now awaiting charge-sheeting before a Gujarat magistrate’s court, the arrest of Bhatt is also a clear attempt by the state of Gujarat to warn us all collectively and individually of repercussions if we struggle for justice. It is a pathetic subversion of the Constitution and the rule of law.

(Press release issued by Citizens for Justice and Peace on October 1, 2011.)

The post Vindictive action appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The FIR, the SIT report and the data unearthed during CJP’s investigations contain considerable evidence of serious crimes and grave miscarriages of justice, leading to serious allegations that have emerged in this context. We examine some of them.
 
Allegation I: The decision to take the charred bodies of the victims of the Godhra arson to Ahmedabad, handing them over to an office-bearer of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), not to government officials. The bodies were handed over to the then state general secretary of the VHP, Dr Jaideep Patel, who is accused of instigating the mob in the Naroda Gaon case. The decision to parade them through Ahmedabad in unrestrained funeral processions during which mobs raised provocative slogans. The allegation in the FIR is that the decision to take the bodies in a ceremonial procession to Ahmedabad was a premeditated decision taken by chief minister Narendra Modi against the advice of the Panchmahal (Godhra) collector/district magistrate, Jayanti Ravi.

The SIT has in its findings stated that given the presence of the then minister of state for home, Gordhan Zadaphiya, at Godhra, it was a collective decision of the cabinet. Although Zadaphiya and Jaideep Patel initially concurred on this, Zadaphiya has since given a contrary statement to the SIT that implicates Modi. Investigating officer AK Malhotra speaks of two separate cremations at Ahmedabad on February 28, 2002 whereas SIT chairperson RK Raghavan casually mentions one. Neither of the two SIT officials gives weight to the documentary evidence provided in the Gujarat State Intelligence Bureau report (titled C/Dir/Smashan yatra/176/2002 and dated February 28, 2002) marked to Modi’s office and senior police officials, wherein the “likelihood of disturbances” after funeral processions was pointed out.

Call records of Jaideep Patel
An analysis of Jaideep Patel’s call records is revealing. It shows that between 8:03 p.m. and 11:58 p.m. on February 27, 2002 he made and received calls to/from Gordhan Zadaphiya. Patel was also in constant touch with police officers; we do not know why. His call records show that between 1:05 p.m. and 9:16 p.m. on February 27, 2002 he made and received calls to/from the then DCP (zone V), Ahmedabad, RJ Savani. CJP submitted details of Patel’s call records to Malhotra which show that he was also in close touch with chief minister Narendra Modi’s office. Malhotra is strangely silent on this. On February 28, 2002 Jaideep Patel had five telephone conversations with the chief minister’s office (CMO). Why?

The question that remains is whether it is normal procedure to hand over bodies of the victims of a tragedy in such a sensitive matter, which could have widespread repercussions on intercommunity peace and harmony, to an office-bearer of an organisation like the VHP which has a virulent track record of instigating violence but which happens to have powerful political patrons, including the chief minister and senior functionaries of the ruling party in the state?

Allegation II: The illegal instructions, to allow Hindus to vent their anger, issued by Modi at a top-level meeting held at the chief minister’s residence on February 27, 2002. It is clear from the SIT’s investigations that such a meeting did take place. It has also been established that no minutes of the proceedings were kept. The continuing dispute is about what transpired at the meeting.

The SIT recorded a joint statement from Justice PB Sawant, a former judge of the Supreme Court, and Justice Hosbet Suresh, a former judge of the Bombay high court, who had been members of the Concerned Citizens Tribunal – Gujarat 2002. They narrated details about the February 27 meeting from the confessions made to them by the late Haren Pandya, former minister of state for revenue, in mid-May 2002 when he deposed before the tribunal. In their statement before the SIT, they clearly stated that Pandya had testified before them that “Narendra Modi had made it clear that there would be a backlash from Hindus on the next day… and police should not come in their way”. The FIR also refers to Pandya’s testimony relating to a high-level meeting convened by the chief minister to which the then chief secretary, the then home secretary and senior policemen were summoned and to whom clear instructions were given “not to deal with the Hindu rioting mobs”.
Sanjiv Bhatt, who is currently making headlines, had earlier told the SIT that he would speak about this meeting and the illegal instructions issued at the meeting only if there was a legal obligation to do so. Bhatt, who in 2002 held the post of SP, security, in the SIB, also referred to a message received at the  control room on February 27, 2002 announcing that the chief minister had called for a situational review meeting. As is now well known, the SIT subsequently recorded a statement from Bhatt under Section 161 of the CrPC and he has since submitted an affidavit in this regard to the Supreme Court of India.

The FIR records that RB Sreekumar, who in 2002 held the post of ADGP, intelligence, had stated in an affidavit before the Nanavati-Shah Commission that the then director general of police (DGP), Gujarat, K. Chakravarti, had told him about the crucial meeting held by Chief Minister Modi on February 27, 2002. The chief minister had said at the meeting that “in communal riots, police takes action against Hindus and Muslims on one-to-one basis. This will not do now, allow Hindus to give vent to their anger” (paragraph 84 of RB Sreekumar’s fourth affidavit before the Nanavati-Shah Commission dated October 27, 2005).  

Allegation III: The illegal stationing of two ministers in the state and city police control rooms is a fact that has been established. The SIT admits this. However, there has been no attempt to further investigate the logical consequences of political interference with the proper functioning of the police i.e. preventing the police in several districts from doing their constitutional duty. The FIR refers to press reports of the time which documented the presence of senior cabinet ministers in the state and city police control rooms and their illegal interference in police functioning, their subversion of police rules and protocol by instructing policemen not to function and otherwise manipulating instructions.
 

Ringing evidence
Who was the chief minister calling while Gujarat burned?

The CMO makes 15 calls to the Ahmedabad police commissioner, PC Pande, on February 28, 2002. The CP does not step out of his office between 10:50 a.m. and 7:10 p.m. although the city was aflame from about 11 a.m. onwards. Were these calls directly correlated to the instructions given to top echelons of the police not to act?

The CMO makes contact with the VHP Gujarat general secretary, Dr Jaideep Patel (now an accused in the Naroda Gaon massacre), five times on February 28, 2002. This includes three conversations with Sanjay Bhavsar, officer on special duty to
the chief minister, and one with the chief minister’s PA, Tanmay Mehta.

The chief minister’s office numbers record only three telephone calls through the day that Ahmedabad was burning i.e. February 28, 2002. His residence records only two calls. Is this not unusual?

Allegation IV: The failure of the police to act, especially as a direct result of political interference. The FIR details several instances that corroborate this.

a) K. Chakravarti, the then DGP of Gujarat, had not given any special instructions about the preservation of law and order and no strict instructions on how mobs should be dealt with.

b) The then CP, Ahmedabad, PC Pande, commented on Newshour, Star News, on February 28, 2002 that: “These people also, they somehow get carried away by the overall general sentiment. That’s the whole trouble. The police are equally influenced by the overall general sentiments.”

c) Rahul Sharma, who in 2002 held the post of SP, Bhavnagar, stated during his cross-examination before the Nanavati-Shah Commission in 2004 that the attack on a madrassa housing hundreds of Muslim children, which took place under his jurisdiction on March 1, 2002, appeared to be an organised one. He also revealed that the minister of state for home, Gordhan Zadaphiya, had later complained to him about the greater number of Hindu deaths in police firing in Bhavnagar as compared to Muslims.

d) Police Inspector (PI) Khurshid Mysorewala, who was stationed at the Naroda police station in 2002, in an affidavit and during his cross-examination before the Nanavati-Shah Commission in 2004, averred that due to the lack of preventive measures, the instructions from superiors about system overload, the non-provision of reinforcements and other reasons, he was unable to avert the attacks or respond to the Muslim victims’ cries for help and stop the heinous crimes that took place in Naroda Patiya.

e) MK Tandon, in 2002, the JCP, Ahmedabad, stated in his cross-examination before the Nanavati-Shah Commission that when the incidents at Naroda Patiya and Gulberg Society, Meghaninagar, occurred, neither he nor the police commissioner were present; that none of the policemen who were present used force to try and disperse the mob; and that no inquiries were made by the state home minister regarding the breakdown of law and order. When the attack on Gulberg Society took place, two deputy superintendents of police, one PI and one officer of the Central Industrial Security Force were present but no strict measures were taken to disperse the mob.

Allegation V: The illegal instructions given by upper echelons of the Gujarat executive to senior policemen, recorded by the then ADGP, RB Sreekumar, in a handwritten personal register and detailed in the FIR.

a) RB Sreekumar, in his third affidavit before the Nanavati-Shah Commission dated April 9, 2005, records the attempts made by senior officers in his department and the then undersecretary, Dinesh Kapadia, the then secretary, law and order, GC Murmu, and the then government pleader, Arvind Pandya – after Sreekumar had filed his first affidavit before the commission – to pressurise him to refrain from filing further affidavits and from telling the truth before the commission i.e. to make him commit the criminal offence of perjury. Sreekumar stated that he was intimidated and warned by Murmu and Pandya to lie on oath and to avoid telling the whole truth.  
   
b) Paragraph 91 of Sreekumar’s fourth affidavit dated October 27, 2005 lists the names of several senior bureaucrats and police officials who, despite the expanded terms of reference of the Nanavati-Shah Commission (which, after July 2004, included within its ambit the “role and conduct of the then chief minister or any other ministers in his council of ministers, police officers, other individuals and organisations” in regard to the post-Godhra violence), bowed to pressure and did not file second affidavits that would have enlarged on the conduct of the chief minister Narendra Modi or any other ministers, etc.

Allegation VI: Officers of the state have been directly influenced to testify to falsified events and thereby commit the criminal act of perjury, as the FIR demonstrates. At the time when the FIR was prepared, this related to the lies and contradictions stated on oath by senior IPS and IAS officers in their affidavits before the Nanavati-Shah Commission.

Former Ahmedabad police commissioner PC Pande (accused No. 28 in the FIR) stated on oath before the Nanavati-Shah Commission that he had a memory lapse regarding what actually transpired at Gulberg Society on February 28, 2002. The commission failed to question him about why curfew was not imposed in Ahmedabad city until as late as 1 p.m. on February 28 when on February 27, 2002 itself at least 14 incidents of mob violence had been recorded in FIRs by the police. He was subsequently examined by the SIT on two occasions when, having apparently regained his memory, he denied being in possession of control room records and other crucial evidential material.

The absence of these documents was recorded by the SIT’s investigating officer, AK Malhotra. Listing the constraints faced by him as IO, he cites “destruction of critical documentary evidence” as one of the limitations he faced. Ironically, records were ostensibly destroyed in 2007 while the Supreme Court was seized of the matter thus amounting to contempt of court.

Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code, ‘Of False Evidence and Offences Against Public Justice’ (Sections 201-205), and Chapter X, ‘Of Contempts of the Lawful Authority of Public Servants’ (Sections 175, 177, 187 and 188), refer to offences by public servants of failing to assist the course of public justice, destroying evidence and so on. After the Supreme Court first indicated that it would look beyond the SIT’s dismissive conclusions (January 20, 2011) and the SIT began formally recording statements under Section 161 of the CrPC, PC Pande made an interesting turnabout.

In its earliar report submitted to the Supreme Court, the SIT did find Modi guilty of a brazenly communal mindset. It remains to be seen what shape the SIT report/charge sheet will now take

On April 11, 2011 AK Malhotra came to Mumbai to record the statement of CJP’s Teesta Setalvad under Section 161. She insisted on mentioning the destruction of records as a specific culpable, criminal offence whereupon Malhotra unexpectedly informed her that, post-January 20, while the SIT was recording his statement under Section 161, PC Pande had done a complete turnaround and submitted a CD containing 3,500 scanned pages of hitherto ‘destroyed’ documents. Setalvad had in a letter to the SIT dated April 21, 2011 pointed out that Pande’s selective suppression of records during the SIT’s earlier investigations, and the mysterious reappearance of these documents, itself merited thorough investigation.

Allegation VII: The top echelons of the state administration and police force deliberately ignored the reports and warnings issued by their own State Intelligence Bureau, and other indicators, as demonstrated in the FIR.

a) RB Sreekumar, in paragraph 17 of his first affidavit before the Nanavati-Shah Commission dated July 6, 2002, stated that in response to a message received from the Uttar Pradesh intelligence department (during the period preceding the Godhra incident), the Gujarat SIB had requested all SPs and police commissioners to inform the SP, Faizabad, about the movement of kar sevaks from their respective jurisdictions. Following this, on February 16, 2002 the SP, Western Railway, Vadodara, had informed the IGP, intelligence, Uttar Pradesh, that on February 22, 2002 Prahlad Patel, president of the Bajrang Dal, Mehsana, would be leading a group of 150-200 trishul-bearing Bajrang Dal activists to the Ayodhya Maha Yagna on the Sabarmati Express.

b) In paragraphs 18 and 19 of the affidavit, Sreekumar points to the failure of the central and Uttar Pradesh (police) intelligence departments to provide adequate and timely information to the Gujarat state or SIB about the return journey of the kar sevaks, their unruly behaviour while returning from Ayodhya aboard the Sabarmati Express and, more specifically, their altercation with Muslims when the latter attempted to board the train at Rudauli.

c) In addition to the reports relating to the trouble anticipated on and after February 28, 2002, as communal violence persisted beyond the initial phase, the Gujarat SIB continued to provide specific intelligence reports, as revealed in paragraph 26 of Sreekumar’s first affidavit. In two such reports dated April 15 and April 26, 2002, the SIB provided information about impending communal trouble, including among other things the plan by radical Hindu elements to launch a large-scale assault on a Muslim colony in Ahmedabad and a plan by Bajrang Dal leaders to distribute lethal weapons. None of these reports were acted upon by the police hierarchy or the state executive.

Allegation VIII: The punitive treatment meted out by the state to those police officers who acted constitutionally to maintain law and order. While the FIR mentions six officers who were so punished, since then, at least three more officers have received similar treatment at the hands of the state.

Allegation IX: The rewards given to the senior IAS and IPS officers who bowed to Chief Minister Modi’s diabolical, unconstitutional plans. The FIR names 14 officers who were so rewarded.

Allegation X: The subversion of the criminal justice system.

The appointment of public prosecutors (PPs) with allegiances to the groups that led the violence was covered exhaustively in the May 2009 issue of Communalism Combat. Since then, CJP has investigated further and filed applications under the Right to Information Act, especially after a report on NDTV on March 29, 2010 revealed that many of the defence lawyers appearing for the accused in the nine major carnage trials have been appointed special public prosecutors to be paid Rs 12-15,000 a day with a specially amended rule of the Gujarat government’s legal department stating that fees would even be paid for days of adjournment. Hence the state of Gujarat is footing the bill for many lawyers appearing for the key accused in the post-Godhra massacres.

• Gulberg Society trial: Defence counsel Mitesh Amin is also a special PP, Gujarat. (Amin was paid Rs 25,52,000 by the state between April 1, 2009 and March 31, 2010.)
• Sardarpura trial: Defence counsel HM Dhruv, BC Barot and JG Rajput (now retired) were appointed special PPs, Gujarat. (HM Dhruv was paid Rs 17,28,000 by the state between April 1, 2009 and March 31, 2010.)
• Naroda Patiya trial: Defence counsel NM Kikani, BO Sharma, NR Shah, Bharat J. Joshi, MJ Dagli, HC Patel, SR Patel, GS Solanki, KN Thakor and RN Kikani were appointed special PPs, Gujarat.
• Naroda Gaon trial: Defence counsel Chetan K. Shah, Rohit H. Verma, Rajesh N. Modi, MR Khandar, Nilesh Lodha, HC Patel and PO Sharma were appointed special PPs, Gujarat. (Chetan Shah was paid Rs 2,97,000 by the state between April 1, 2009 and March 31, 2010.)
• Odh trial: Defence counsel CK Patel, Bharat J. Joshi and Ashwin H. Dhagad were appointed special PPs, Gujarat.
• In its earliar report submitted to the Supreme Court, the SIT did find Modi guilty of a brazenly communal mindset. It remains to be seen what shape the SIT report/charge sheet will now take.     

The post The offences and the evidence appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Alarmed at the persistent efforts of the  Gujarat state  through its police to  derail the justice process by targeting Teesta Setalvad personally, prominent human rights defenders have announced the formation of the Committee for the Defence of Teesta Setalvad and Justice in Gujarat, an initiative launched at a press conference in Mumbai on May 23, 2011. Chaired by a distinguished former judge of the Supreme Court of India, PB Sawant, the committee has two vice-chairpersons, veteran Islamic scholar Dr Asghar Ali Engineer and former chief minister of Gujarat Suresh Mehta; its conveners are advocate Balwant Desai and social activist Irfan Engineer.

The members of the committee include renowned academics and historians Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib, Rajmohan Gandhi and Prabhat Patnaik as well as prominent public figures such as Aruna Roy, Juzar Bandukwala and Binayak and Ilina Sen.
Speaking at the press conference, Justice Sawant said: “The malicious and motivated campaign against Teesta and the lawyers struggling for justice for the victims of the genocide in Gujarat in 2002 is aimed at distracting the course of justice and attacking the personal liberties of the human rights activists who have stood by the course of truth and justice.” Coming down heavily on the Gujarat government, he observed that what happened and continues to happen in Gujarat is a “rape of the legal system”.

“In Gujarat today, every constitutional norm is subverted; there is corruption and intimidation of the most vindictive kind,” opined former chief minister Suresh Mehta.

“The attack against Teesta Setalvad is three-pronged, aimed at threatening her personal liberty through arrest, a widespread disinformation and malicious campaign to affect the process of justice and distracting her from the demands of the struggle,” said senior lawyer Mihir Desai, speaking at the launch.

This intimidation comes at a time when finally, after nine long years, serious allegations against the Gujarat chief minister, Narendra Modi, of masterminding the criminal conspiracy to commit mass murder, have reached a pivotal stage. In a path-breaking development, the Supreme Court of India on May 5, 2011 directed the amicus curiae to examine all evidence and meet all witnesses and report back to the court on whether a case exists against the chief minister and 61 others. Serving and retired Indian Police Service (IPS) and Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers have testified to the illegal and unconstitutional instructions given by Narendra Modi on February 27, 2002 which led to the carnage. In the ensuing days at least 2,500 people, mostly Muslims, were murdered. Rape and other terrible acts of violence were committed while the state police and administration stood by.

In addition to the evidence of high-level complicity that is being unravelled through the relentless pursuit of justice, the next six months or year could see the conviction of over 350 accused in the eight major carnage trials being monitored by the Supreme Court and in which Citizens for Justice and Peace, the organisation Setalvad represents, has been providing legal aid to victims and witnesses. The real story of the struggle for justice is the courage with which survivors have deposed, without fear or favour, within Gujarat even as the perpetrators walk free on bail.

Prosecution of all those responsible for these crimes is an essential prerequisite for justice, peace and reconciliation. It will help guarantee that similar crimes are not committed in the future. It is this judicial process, set inexorably in motion by the grit and persistence of the victim survivors, and supported by Setalvad and her organisation, that the government of Gujarat is brazenly seeking to thwart through its persecution of Teesta Setalvad.

Apart from a Facebook presence, more information can be sourced at http://justice4guj02.blogspot.com/. A US-based medical practitioner, Dr Bindu Desai, has initiated an online petition to the president of India, accessible at http://www.petitiononline.com/guj2002/petition.html, which states: “We follow with increasing concern and dismay events related to efforts seeking redress for the victims of the carnage in Gujarat in 2002. We have witnessed the relentless harassment and intimidation of Teesta Setalvad who has been working tirelessly and courageously for justice for these victims. She is targeted with character assassination, false allegations and threats to her personal security. In a concerted attempt to derail the course of justice, the government of Gujarat has foisted four false criminal cases against her. She faces the very real threat of arrest.

“The victims of 2002 have waited far too long for redress and justice. We urge you therefore to use the powers of your high office to ensure justice for the victims. We want you to make certain that the law and the process of justice take their proper course without being subverted or influenced by vested interests, however powerful. We demand that the government of Gujarat ceases the harassment and intimidation of Teesta Setalvad and other human rights defenders.”   
          

The post Committee for the Defence of Teesta Setalvad and Justice in Gujarat appeared first on SabrangIndia.

We list below the details of the criminal charges made out in the complaint and the petition. Due to constraints of space, some of these charges have been condensed here. Full details can be accessed at www.cjponline.org.

Details of offences with applicable sections of law

1. Criminal conspiracy and abetment to commit multiple offences of murder (Section 120 B (Punishment of criminal conspiracy) read with (r/w) Section 114 (Abettor present when offence is committed) r/w Section 302 (Punishment for murder), Indian Penal Code (IPC)).

2. Furnishing false information (Section 177, IPC).

3. False statement made in declaration, which is by law receivable as evidence (Section 199, IPC).

4. Punishment for false evidence (Section 193, IPC r/w Section 6 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952).

5. Giving false information about an offence committed (Section 203, IPC).

6. Injuring or defiling place of worship with intent to insult the religion of any class (Section 295, IPC); Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs (Section 295 A, IPC).

7. Uttering, words, etc, with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings (Section 298, IPC).

8. Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions (Section 186, IPC).

9. Omission to assist a public servant when bound by law to give assistance (Section 187, IPC).

10. Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc, and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony (Section 153 A, IPC).

11. Criminal intimidation (Section 506, IPC).

12. Mischief causing damage to public property (Section 3, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984).

13. Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person (Section 166, IPC).

Accused No. 1: Narendra D. Modi, in 2002 and currently Chief Minister of Gujarat.

Evidence in support of the charges

1. Instructions to the director general of police (DGP), the chief secretary and other senior officials to give vent to the Hindu anger against minority Muslims in the wake of the Godhra incident. Meeting held in Gandhinagar on the evening of February 27, 2002, as testified in Affidavit No. 4 dated October 27, 2005 of additional director general of police (ADGP), RB Sreekumar, before the Nanavati-Shah Commission.

2. The chief minister (CM)’s decision to bring dead bodies of those killed in the Godhra train fire to Ahmedabad and parade them in Ahmedabad city, as testified by Ashok Narayan, former addl. chief secretary, home department, in his cross-examination before the Nanavati-Shah Commission.

3. Numerous illegal instructions given verbally to officials as detailed in Affidavit No. 3 dated April 9, 2005 of RB Sreekumar before the Nanavati-Shah Commission (Annexure F).

4. Evidence contained in Crime Against Humanity, Concerned Citizens Tribunal report, Gujarat 2002, by a panel of judges, Justices VR Krishna Iyer, PB Sawant and others, which included testimonies of officials and a cabinet minister of the state of Gujarat.

5. Positioning cabinet ministers, IK Jadeja and Ashok Bhatt, in the DGP’s office and Ahmedabad city control room respectively. DGP Chakravarti was critical of the minister, IK Jadeja, remaining in his office, as testified by RB Sreekumar in para 85 of his fourth affidavit before the Nanavati-Shah Commission.

6. Transfer of officers from field executive posts in the thick of the riots in 2002 despite the DGP’s objections (as per media reports), to facilitate placement of those who were willing to subvert the system for political and electoral benefits.

7. Rewarding of senior officials with undue benefits even while their conduct is under scrutiny at the Nanavati-Shah Commission. The latest instance was the six-month extension as state vigilance commissioner awarded to Ashok Narayan, who has already completed two years in the above post-retirement placement. The orders were issued on July 28, 2006.

8. No follow-up action on the reports sent by RB Sreekumar on April 24, 2002, June 15, 2002, August 20, 2002 and August 28, 2002 about the administration’s anti-minority stance. Copies of these reports are appended in Affidavit No. 2 dated October 6, 2004 of RB Sreekumar before the Nanavati-Shah Commission.

9. Indictment by the Supreme Court about the injustices carried out against the minority community and riot victims in the investigation of riot cases in respect of 1) the Bilkees Bano case, 2) the Best Bakery case.

10. Partisan investigations betraying prejudice against riot victims belonging to the minority community, as indicated by Rahul Sharma, the then superintendent of police (SP), Bhavnagar district, and now SP (CBI), Gandhinagar, during his cross-examination before the Nanavati-Shah Commission.

11. The CM, Narendra Modi, did not visit the riot affected areas during the initial days of the violence though he visited the Godhra railway station on February 27, 2002 itself.

12. The press statement by Narendra Modi that the reaction against the Muslim community was the operation of Newton’s law of action and reaction.

13. No direction from Narendra Modi to Hindu organisations against the observance of a bandh on February 28, 2002. (In 1997 and subsequently, the Kerala High Court has declared forced bandhs illegal; the 1997 verdict was even upheld by the Supreme Court.)

14. Delay in the requisition and deployment of the army although anti-minority violence had broken out on the afternoon of February 27, 2002 itself, in the cities of Vadodara, Ahmedabad, etc.

15. Appointment of pro-VHP advocates as public prosecutors in riot cases though as home minister (cabinet rank) the CM had the necessary means at his disposal to verify the credentials and integrity of these advocates.

16. Refusal to transfer officers from the grass root level, as per the State Intelligence Bureau (SIB)’s recommendation, until the arrival of KPS Gill as security adviser to the CM in May 2002. Gill ensured the above transfers and this led to a dramatic improvement in the situation, as indicated in RB Sreekumar’s second affidavit before the Nanavati-Shah Commission.

17. No action taken against the print media carrying communally inflammatory reports although the SIB and some field officers had recommended such action, as noted in Affidavit No. 1 of RB Sreekumar dated July 6, 2002 and during his cross-examination before the Nanavati-Shah Commission on August 31, 2004. (It is the state home department that is empowered to give clearance for initiating action against the print media.)

18. The state home department provided misleading reports about normalcy in the state to the Chief Election Commission (CEC) so as to ensure early assembly elections. The home department’s assessment was adjudged as false by the CEC in its open order dated August 16, 2002. As per the register recording verbal instructions from higher echelons of government (the CM and others) maintained by RB Sreekumar, in his third affidavit before the Nanavati-Shah Commission it is noted that he was directed by home department officials to give favourable reports about the law and order situation so as to facilitate the holding of early elections.

19. State secretary, home department, GC Murmu, was presumably specially assigned to tutor, cajole and even intimidate officials deposing before the Nanavati-Shah Commission, to prevent them from telling the truth and harming the interests of the CM and the ruling party, as noted in RB Sreekumar’s third affidavit before the Nanavati-Shah Commission.

20. GC Murmu’s mission was to try and ensure that officials did not file affidavits relating to the second term of reference of the Nanavati-Shah Commission, in particular, the role of the CM and other ministers in the riots.

21. Initiating no action against senior police officers, whose work is administered by the home department, for their grave dereliction of duty in the supervision of the investigation of serious offences as envisaged in Rules 24, 134, 135 and 240 of the Gujarat Police Manual-Vol. III, as noted in para 94 of RB Sreekumar’s fourth affidavit before the Nanavati-Shah Commission.

22. Did not initiate departmental action against the then SP of Dahod district, SP Jadeja, for his gross misconduct and negligence during investigations into the Bilkees Bano case despite recommendations to that effect by the CBI which reinvestigated the case as per the directions of the Supreme Court.

23. Investigating officers in the Naroda Patiya and the Gulberg Society cases did not investigate the compact disc (CD) containing records of important telephone calls made by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders and police officers during the riots. Rahul Sharma, SP (CBI), had submitted this CD to the Nanavati-Shah Commission in 2004. In May 2007 the commission ordered an inquiry into this matter, as per media reports.

24. A situation conducive to the rehabilitation of riot victims has not been created, contrary to the claims made by the state administration in its reports to the National Human Rights Commission. Instead, riot victims were pressurised into compromising with the perpetrators of the violence as a condition precedent for their safe return to their homes and their rehabilitation.

25. Police inaction on investigating the roots and extent of the criminal conspiracy, linked to their participation in it.

26. No minutes or written notes of the meetings held by the CM and senior bureaucrats were issued, and instructions were mainly conveyed on the telephone. The non-issuance of such minutes/notes served the twin objectives of 1) Field officers carrying out the conspiracy of a pogrom against the minority and 2) Avoidance of subsequent monitoring of actions by jurisdictional officers in the field.

27. No action has been taken against officers like K. Chakravarti, then DGP; PC Pande, then commissioner of police (CP), Ahmedabad city; Ashok Narayan, then addl. chief secretary, and a large number of senior government functionaries who filed incomplete, inaccurate, vague and inadequate affidavits before the Nanavati-Shah Commission. Virtually no officer provided important documents relevant to the terms of reference of the commission as exhibits either in affidavits or during their cross-examination.

28. Slack review of post-riot cases, a review ordered by the Supreme Court in 2004. This was achieved by entrusting the work to those senior officers who were willing or constrained to act according to the political interests of the CM and the BJP.

29. Nepotism practised in postings, transfers, promotions, etc despite mounting vacancies in police departments so as to facilitate the ongoing subversion of the criminal justice system.

30. The fact that the main victims of the riots were Muslims, and the violence and police firing were targeted predominantly at the Muslim community will establish that rioters, the administration, cohorts of the ruling party (BJP), were working in collaboration to achieve the vile objectives of the CM. Statistics in this respect may be seen in RB Sreekumar’s second affidavit before the Nanavati-Shah Commission, particularly in para 3 of Appendix V therein.

The nature of offences detailed and the quantum of evidence delineated above categorically establish that the accused No. 1, Chief Minister Narendra Modi, had violated and has been violating his oath of allegiance to the Constitution of India. Further, through a series of preconceived, and pre-planned illegal actions, he carried out and has been pursuing actions challenging, violating and subverting the letter, spirit and ethos of the Constitution. This sinister design has been implemented by means of the malevolent use of the human and material resources under his command, by virtue of his position as chief minister. Activists, collaborators and supporters of the ruling party – BJP – and its feeder and sister organisations have been motivated, equipped and directed by the accused for the perpetration of crimes as listed above. In other words, the accused has been waging a war against the true sovereignty of the Indian nation, "We, the people", as etched in the first line of the Preamble to the Constitution of India. The deliberate acts of omission and commission by the accused, individually and through his active collaborators in the state administration and the BJP’s party bodies, violate the basic and inviolable structure of Indian polity as envisioned in the preamble to the Constitution.

From this perspective, the accused had and has been committing seditious acts, which had and will have a divisive, degenerative and debilitative impact on Indian society and on the unity and integrity of the Indian nation in the long term.

Acc. No. 2: Ashok Bhatt, in 2002, Minister for Health, currently Minister for Law and Justice, Health and Family Welfare, Legislative & Parliamentary Affairs, NGOs, etc.

Acc. No. 3: Indravijaysinh K. Jadeja, in 2002, Minister for Urban Development, currently Minister for Roads & Buildings, Capital Projects, Urban Development and Urban Housing.

Acc. No. 4: Prabhatsinh P. Chauhan, in 2002, Minister for Transport, currently Minister (MoS) for Tribal Development and MLA from Kalol, Gandhinagar district.

Acc. No. 5: Gordhan Zadaphiya, in 2002 an MLA and Minister for Home, currently an MLA from Rakhial, Ahmedabad.

Acc. No. 6: Ranjitsingh N. Chawda, in 2002 an MLA and Minister for Cottage Industries and Shri Vajpayee Swarojgar Yojna.

Acc. No. 7: Kaushikkumar J. Patel, in 2002, Minister for Energy and MLA from Shahpur, Ahmedabad, currently Minister for Revenue and Disaster Management.

Acc. No. 8: CD Patel, in 2002 an MLA from Petlad, Anand district, currently Minister (MoS) for Tourism, Holy Places & Pilgrimage Development (Ind. Charge), etc.

Acc. No. 9: Nitin R. Patel, in 2002 an MLA from Kadi, Mehsana and Minister for Finance.

Acc. No. 10: Amit A. Shah, currently Minister (MoS) for Home, Police Housing, Border Security, Jails, Prohibition, Excise (Ind. Charge) and Transport, and MLA from Sarkhej, Ahmedabad.

Acc. No. 11: Anil T. Patel, (of the Apollo Group) currently Minister (MoS) for Civil Aviation, Cottage and Salt Industry (Ind. Charge), Industry, Mines and Minerals, and MLA from Mehsana.

Acc. No. 12: Narayan L. Patel, in 2002, Minister for Transport (Ind. Charge), currently an MLA from Unjha, Mehsana district.

Acc. No. 13: Kalu H. Maliwad, in 2002 an MLA from Lunawada, former taluka Panchayat Pramukh, currently an MLA from Lunawada, Panchmahal district.

Acc. No. 14: Dilip M. Patel, in 2002 an MLA, currently an MLA from Anand Vidhyanagar, Anand district.

Acc. No. 15: Madhu B. Srivastava, in 2002 an MLA and currently an MLA from Waghodiya, Vadodara.

Acc. No. 16: Dr (Ms) Maya Kodnani, in 2002 and currently an MLA from Naroda, Ahmedabad.

Acc. No. 17: Nalin K. Bhatt, former General Secretary, BJP. Author of the party’s affidavit before the Nanavati-Shah Commission.

Acc. No. 18: Rajendra Singh Rana, in 2002 and currently MP from Bhavnagar. Spokesperson of the BJP.

Acc. No. 19: Dr Kaushik J. Mehta, Joint Secretary, Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), Gujarat.

Acc. No. 20: Dr Praveen Togadia, in 2002 and currently, International General Secretary, VHP.

Acc. No. 21: Dr Jaideep Patel, Gujarat Secretary, VHP.

Acc. No. 22: Babu Bajrangi Patel, Member, Bajrang Dal and VHP, Ahmedabad.

Acc. No. 23: Prof KK Shastri, Chairman, VHP, Gujarat unit, and Editor, Viswa Hindu Samachar.

Acc. No. 24: Babu Rajput, BJP worker, Ahmedabad.

Acc. No. 25: K. Chakravarti, in 2002, DGP, Gujarat, now retired.

Acc. No. 26: AK Bhargava, former DGP, Gujarat, currently Managing Director (MD), Gujarat State Police Housing Corporation Ltd.

Acc. No. 27: G. Subbarao, in 2002, Chief Secretary, Government of Gujarat, currently Chairman, Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission.

Acc. No. 28: Ashok Narayan, in 2002, Addl. Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Gujarat, currently Gujarat State Vigilance Commissioner.

Acc. No. 29: PC Pande, in 2002, CP, Ahmedabad, later transferred on deputation to the CBI, New Delhi, currently DGP, Gujarat.

Acc. No. 30: K. Srinivas, in 2002, Collector, Ahmedabad district.

Acc. No. 31: Dr PK Mishra, in 2002, Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister and Chief Executive Officer, Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority, currently Addl. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Gujarat Government.

Acc. No. 32: Kuldeep Sharma, in 2002, Range In-charge, Ahmedabad Range, currently ADGP (Training).

Acc. No. 33: MK Tandon, in 2002, Addl. CP, Ahmedabad, currently Range Inspector General (IG), Surat Range.

Acc. No. 34: K. Nityanandam, in 2002, Home Secretary, currently, CP, Rajkot city.

Acc. No. 35: Rakesh Asthana, on deputation in 2002, from April 2002, Deputy Inspector General (DIG), CID-Crime, currently IG, Vadodara Range. Head of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the Godhra train fire.

Acc. No. 36: AK Sharma, in 2002, SP, Mehsana, currently IG, Ahmedabad Range.

Acc. No. 37: GC Murmu, Secretary, Home Department (Law & Home), Government of Gujarat.

Acc. No. 38: Shivanand Jha, Secretary, Home, Government of Gujarat.

Acc. No. 39: DH Brahmbhatt, Collector, Panchmahal district.

Acc. No. 40: Deepak Swaroop, in 2002, IG, Vadodara Range, currently, CP, Vadodara.

Acc. No. 41: Sudhir Sinha, in 2004, CP Vadodara, currently CP, Surat.

Acc. No. 42: K. Kumarswami, former Addl. CP, Vadodara, currently IGP (Intelligence), Gujarat.

Acc. No. 43: BS Jabaliya, District Police Chief, Anand.

Acc. No. 44: DG Vanzara, former Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), Ahmedabad Crime Branch, (May 2002 to July 2005), former DIG (Border Range) and head of the Anti-Terrorism Squad. He was suspended and is currently in jail for his involvement in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case.

Acc. No. 45: Rahul Sharma, in 2002, SP, Bhavnagar, and thereafter, DCP, Control Room, currently SP (CBI), Gandhinagar.

Acc. No. 46: Raju Bhargava, in 2002, SP, Panchmahal district, currently SP, Sabarkantha.

Acc. No. 47: (Ms) Anju Sharma, in 2002, Collector, Bharuch district.

Acc. No. 48: DD Tuteja, in 2002, CP, Vadodara city, now retired.

Acc. No. 49: Bhagyesh Jha, former Collector, Vadodara, currently Director of Information, I & B Department, Government of Gujarat.

Acc. No. 50: Nitiraj Solanki, in 2002, SP, Sabarkantha district.

Acc. No. 51: Amrutlal Patel, in 2002, Collector, Mehsana district, currently Collector of Administration, Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), Ahmedabad.

Acc. No. 52: Upendra Singh, in 2002, CP, Rakjot.

Acc. No. 53: PN Patel, in 2002, Collector, Rajkot district.

Acc. No. 54: VM Pargi, in 2002, DCP, Ellis Bridge Police Station, Ahmedabad, currently Addl. CP, Surat.

Acc. No. 55: KG Erda, in 2002, Police Inspector (PI), Meghaninagar Police Station, Ahmedabad, former PI-CID Intelligence, Viramgam, currently PI (Local Crime Branch), Valsad.

Acc. No. 56: KK Mysorewala, in 2002, PI, Naroda Police Station, Ahmedabad, currently, Reader to DIGP, Gandhinagar Range.

Acc. No. 57: MT Rana, Asst. Police Commissioner, G-Division, Ahmedabad city.

Acc. No. 58: Tarun Barot, PI, Ahmedabad Crime Branch.

Acc. No. 59: Narendra Amin, currently Asst. CP, Ahmedabad Crime Branch.

Acc. No. 60: GC Raiger, in 2002, ADGP (Intelligence).

Acc. No. 61: KR Kaushik, in 2002, ADGP (Crime) and later CP, Ahmedabad.

Acc. No. 62: Amitabh Pathak, in 2002, IG, Gandhinagar Range.

Acc. No. 63: Satish Verma, in 2002, DIG (Border Range), Kutch, currently with the SRP Training Centre, Junagadh.

Archived from Communalism Combat, June 2007 Year 13    No.123, Genocide's Aftermath Part I, Crime and Punishment

The post The charge sheet appeared first on SabrangIndia.