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.

It was during tea with Zakia appa – where she tussled with her daughter-in-law about how many biscuits she could have – or the little meals we shared, where she would just hold my hand and stroke it, reaching out with empathy and mutual support. These are the memories that coming rushing back. It is as if we both knew and felt the enormity of the task we had jointly undertaken.

When we look back and take stock of the steely support from Tanveer bhai, Duraiappa (Durreshwar), Nargis, Najid bhai, the family and, not to forget, the dedicated team at Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), we couldn’t have known where it would lead – to some cracks in the otherwise hostile and unbreachable walls of accountability and justice? Or a cold rejection of a simple, hitherto unique plea –acknowledgement of the role of state actors as a murderous mob roamed unchecked for days?

February 28, 2002

I had first walked in alone into the charred remains of the Gulbarg society on March 4, 2002, armed with a small tape recorder and a notebook. Shards of broken glass bottles, tiny vials and their lids dotted the ground as I trudged across the eerie expanse where embers still burned.

No fire-brigade had come to its aid either on February 28 or at any point since then. I made my way to house number 19, Ahsan Jafri’s iconic home, heavy with the knowledge of what we knew until then of the man, his family, neighbours and his brutal death.

The home was no home any more, reduced to a haunting shell. It was bleak. Walls blackened with soot of the intense burning caused by flung gas cylinders. Fans gutted, gnarled and twisted. Miraculously, I found a signed postcard stamped with Jafri Sahab’s name, a diya-swastika and ‘Happy Diwali’ message written on it, on the stairwell – my precious memento of that first of dozens of visits.

A purple-pink bougainvillea that still lends defiant colour to the sombre ruins hung that day with barely surviving leaves and some overhanging blossoms. It had survived hours of mass arson. How could the flowers live on after the hell of February 28, 2002, I remember asking myself in some bewilderment.

Ironically, Zakia appa had spent that night of February 28 in the premises of the Shahibaug police station barely two kms away from the Gulbarg society in Chamanpura. She was alone. Only the next day was she shifted to the home of some distant relatives where she met her son Tanveer Jafri two days later.

Chamanpura falls under the Meghaninagar police station. Traumatised and shaken by the events that she witnessed from the terrace of her home, she was unable to sleep, full of anguished questions to which she had to find answers. Zakia appa has recounted that night to me several times over the years.  She had spent the night haunted by cries and screams of a gory bloodshed – in the midst of the very same force who she saw had let her people down.

Eighty-six years, the day before yesterday, when she left us, Zakia appa was 63 in 2002, no age to hear the cries she did, no age to witness what her eyes could not turn away from. Over 69 persons were killed in cold blood that day as a 15,000-strong mob began attacking residents at 11 in the morning. No police help arrived till 6 pm.

Late that night, in the precincts of the Shahibaug police lines, she found several policemen present in their homes on the compound. Perplexed, her simple query to them was, “Why did you not come to my husband, my society, our neighbour’s rescue beta? We made so many calls” she asked. “We were given the day off,” one police officer casually replied.

This reply by one of them has gnawed at her, since. On June 18, 2009, six years later, she recounted this to the Special Investigation Team (SIT) appointed by the Supreme Court. In her official statement, she said “…No police turned up and the police came only at six in the evening and I was taken to Shahibaug police line. I saw that the police staff were present at home. They told me that they were not called for duty today (that day).”

Who was Ahsan Jafri?

Zakia appa’s husband of several decades, father of their three children, Tanveer, Nargis and Zubair had been the sole target of the mob. He was 72 when he was killed. Formerly with the Communist Party of India (CPI), he was later the city chief of the Indian National Congress in Ahmedabad, and a formerly elected member of parliament. Ahsan Jafri was a lawyer, thinker and poet.

If the ‘Happy Diwali’ postcard I had found offered a glimpse of the man – whose name soars above and beyond the hatred that was unleashed on the streets of Gujarat in 2002 – then Zakia appa’s moistened eyes, quivering smile and warm hands, Tanveer’s stoic clarity amidst pain and Nargis’ powerful articulations over two decades have actualised Jafri’s inviolable moral core and persona. In the Jafris’ resolve to calmly demand accountability from the high and mighty, Zakia appa, Tanveer and Nargis have always echoed Ahsan sahab’s deeply ingrained beliefs, his credo.

I first met Tanveer through his uncle in early March 2002. It had been Tanveer’s task to hold and help his mother heal even as he went back to Gulbarg society, his childhood home, around March 4. He had rushed to Ahmedabad from Surat where he resided. It was Tanveer who lovingly collected the remains of Ahsan sahab from outside their home, more from the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad and laid his father to some peace and rest.

Zakia appa now lies there with her husband, friend and guide, after she had come as a young bride to Ahmedabad from Burhanpur, Madhya Pradesh. Though there had been nothing peaceful about Jafri’s passing. The utterly stoic and adamant refusal of the Jafris to let go of their belief in the India that Ahsan sahab lived and died for, is special and rare.

Zakia appa and the Jafris turned their back on any bitterness born out of the realisation that even their neighbours had joined the mob on February 28. This is what made Zakia appa stand out with her children, as the stellar human rights defender she was.

She inspired millions, including us, and if there is some consolation today, 22 years after the massacre, it lies in the fact that a complicit media has had no choice but to reflect this in the coverage of her demise. For me personally, as a fellow human rights worker who has stood by the Jafri’s through every legal battle since February 28, 2002 – notwithstanding what it cost me personally and our team at CJP – it has been a rare privilege to embark on this unique journey.

Quiet dignity

Zakia appa had been a young mother, and Tanveer just six years of age, in September 1969, when Gujarat experienced the worst communal violence that the country had seen since Partition. Ahmedabad was the most acutely affected epicentre of the statewide violence.

A vast majority of the nearly 500 persons killed then were also Muslims. Ahsan Jafri lived in Dr Gandhini chawl, a tenement near Gulbarg society with his parents and family. He had already registered the Gulbarg society earlier in 1961 and it was under construction.

As the violence spread, young Tanveer watched in horror as Aiyub bhai’s shop was burned down. Why was this happening, they asked? Soon, there was no time for more questions, they just had to flee. Returning home in panic, Jafri sahab guided his family as they ran two-and-a-half kms down a railway track – the Asarva Udaipur railway line – past the rail crossing. There, some SRP vans came to their rescue and they were taken inside the Relief Camp located inside the police stadium at the same Shahibaug location where Zakia appa was to spend that fateful night of February 28, 2002, 33 years later.

Tanveer remembers playing out in the open and queuing up for tea which they drank in brightly coloured plastic glasses, a novelty at the time. “We lived there for a month, then for another month inside Ubair Shaikh’s Dunlop agency-cycle shop and after that moved into the barely constructed House No. 19 of Gulbarg society. There were no doors and windows, we used sheets to cover sight and sound. Despite this displacement and tragedy, even the fact that all our belongings had been burned and destroyed, Abba just did not let this mean anything to us, did not allow this loss to eat at us,” Tanveer recalls.

“How we lived, how he lived (Ahsan sahab) after the 1969 displacement, is how we have tried to regroup ourselves and live after the unforgettable tragedy of 2002,” says Tanveer. “Dangai hamaaree soch nahin badal sakte hai. Agar aisa hoga to dangaeeon kee jeet hai. Hamaara nuksaan hamen badal nahin sakta. (Rioters cannot change our way of thinking. If that happens, they win. Our losses cannot change us.) They cannot change our choices, the way we are or how we we think. It is this conviction that has ensured that the tragedy of 2002 does not change us,” he adds.

This profound resolve and dignity in the face of unspeakable loss is what epitomises Zakia appa and her family. It is this dignity that she brought to her battle for justice and accountability.

22 years in grief

Zakia appa lived for 22 years after her husband’s brutal killing in deep personal grief, battling sleepless nights and guilt – the guilt of surviving. Her beloved Ahsan sahab had sent her to the top storey of her home to safety, where dozens with her were saved, while many others perished. Those who stood by Ahsan till he finally gave himself up to the mob, just after he said his last prayer, were witness to his calm fortitude, his determined and desperate efforts to make calls (including to the high and mighty) and even his willingness to offer himself to the mob if other lives could be saved.

For the blood-thirsty and determined mob, that was not to be. Apart from the particularly brute way of his killing, young women were subject to gendered violence. To repeat, 69 persons lost their lives at just one location in Gujarat that day. The total number of the post Godhra killings – if we peruse official charge sheets – is close to 2,000.

Zakia appa’s guilt of being alive is evident in an unrelated incident that Nargis recounted in a letter, ‘Bless Us Abba’, in 2016.

“Ammi is never tired of recounting the incident when in the bedroom of your old house while you were sleeping, the small kerosene lamp on the side of the bed fell off and the curtain caught fire. You were sleeping on the side of the fire and Ammi was next to you. As the heat woke you up and you saw the fire, instead of jumping out of the bed immediately, you first woke Ammi up and asked her to get to safety. But when she woke up and saw the fire, she thinks she quickly jumped out of bed and ran to the door without even knowing where you were or what you were trying to tell her. It is more than 40 years since, but she still remembers and regrets that incident and feels guilty of putting herself first that day and not grabbing your hand as she ran to the door.”

I met Nargis for the first time in 2002 in the United States, as I deposed before the International Commission on Religious Freedom. I had that copy of Communalism Combat with me, a testimony of all the eye-witness accounts and FIRs. With swollen eyes, this young woman had only one question to ask me, was the killing of her darling Abba as brutal as she had heard? Lowering my head in shame, I half shook, half nodded, trying to conceal both the documents and facts. It was not to be.

Bearing witness carries an unbearable load. I have often wondered, even as Nargis and I spoke, laughed and squabbled over the years, “Has she ever forgiven me?”

On Saturday (February 1), as I stood inside Saraspur Roza in Ahmedabad, Nargis said, as she held my hand, “She is free now, my Ma. Free of the pain.” Then together we cried.

Journey for justice

Mass media, especially one that has become fearful and complicit, is selective in its coverage and often responsible for erasure of history. But Zakia Appa and Ahsan sahab’s sheer moral worth and the grit of her battle just could not be ignored. This is evidenced from the vast coverage of her demise. But what of the fact that the same coverage is de-fanged and de-contextualised? Especially when it chooses to ignore the venality of the state and the attempted decimation of a principled legal battle. From the start, attempts were made to dilute and erase the scale of the violence, not just across Gujarat after Godhra in 2002, but especially the targeted violence at the Gulberg Society and against Ahsan Jafri on February 28, 2002.

The journey for justice and accountability for the survivors of 2002 has seen its up and downs and as I take stock two days after Zakia appa left us, I wonder if  the glass half empty or half full? Was it all worth it? In all, we, at CJP,  collectively managed 172 convictions, 124 to life imprisonment. Never mind that higher courts often reversed decisions. On principle, we stood against death penalty.

Evidence of state complicity, absence of fire brigades and police response, documentary evidence on intelligence and police control records, was ignored by investigating agencies, and unfortunately, even our courts. Yet, the exemplary efforts put in by our band of dedicated human rights workers and lawyers, we managed to put all this substantive investigations on public record, all this evidence for history to judge.

While the Zakia Jafri case has seen its end, the trial in the Gulbarg society massacre is pending appeal in the Gujarat high court. On June 17, 2016, the trial court judge had convicted 11 persons to life while 13 other accused received sentences up to ten years. All charges of conspiracy were rejected, as was the evidence of three police witnesses, fire brigade records and those from the police control room. As Tanveer, in his own special way says it, “Victory in the courts is only half the story. In the annals of people’s recall and history, that we fought, that Ahsan sahab and Zakia appa are an inspiration to millions, that our collective battle has given others the confidence to fight; that we could through CJP put all this wealth of evidentiary material on record, that is our victory.”

In sum, as I said in tribute to Zakia appa, the day before yesterday, “You graced the courts, our homes and hearts. You did so with unwavering fortitude. Theirs is the loss who could not recognise the scale and magnitude of the loss for just what it was.” For the Jaffris and us, at CJP, who handed over 68 cases concerning the Gujarat carnage, despite all efforts, the state has never fully succeeded in curtailing some substantive successes of the wider battle.

As a footnote, I would like to record here what Zakia Appa, Tanveer, and I often discussed over the years: how high the costs have been, especially for some. For us at CJP, the stellar legal aid provided by our teams epitomises a constitutional right under Article 39-A, and at significant cost, we undertook this battle. Our trustees stood in staunch support. Alongside a committed group of High Court and Supreme Court counsel, we owe a special debt to advocate Suhel Tirmizi of the Gujarat High Court. His sacrifice, commitment, and services were invaluable – not only in being the guiding force behind setting up multiple legal teams of senior and junior lawyers to handle various trials, but specifically in the Zakia Jafri case. From 2006 to 2011, when the case first reached the Supreme Court, his contribution has been immense, and the personal costs he paid, heavy. We pay our tributes to him. There are too many lawyers – at the trial court, High Court, and Supreme Court – to mention here, but their efforts have been equally vital.

I end with this powerful poem penned by Farahdeen Khan and sent to be my dear friend Rukmini, who recognised how personal this loss was for me.

The Betrayal of Fire

She stood, a woman forged in the furnace of grief,

a widow not of one, but of a thousand souls,

each name etched in ash, in silence, in the acrid smoke

that curled from the pyres of justice undone.

Zakia, they left you among ruins, among bones

that the earth itself shuddered to cradle.

They call this nation a mother, but what mother devours

her daughters and spits their bones to the wind?

The gavel did not fall—it was hurled,

a cudgel masquerading as law.

Each robed man who turned his back

added another brick to the mausoleum of truth.

And what of the one who stood beside her?

Teesta, shackled for daring to bear witness,

for daring to say what history chokes on,

for dragging the carcass of conscience into the light.

What price for remembrance, for defiance?

A cell, a charge, a silence enforced—

For in this land, to fight for the fallen

is to fall yourself, and fall alone.

Tell me, you who avert your gaze—

what use is your silk, your scented wealth,

when the very soil beneath your feet

stinks of the unburied dead?

You recoil now, do you not?

Once, you drank with me, laughed with me,

shared in the hollow spoils of comfort.

But truth is a bitter draught, and you spit it out.

Yet I will stand, though my voice be drowned

by the thunder of cowardice and complicity.

For to be silent is to wield the knife,

to be neutral is to be an accomplice.

And so, when the reckoning comes—

not in the courts of men, but in the halls of time—

she will rise, they will rise,

and those who failed them will find no name to call their own.

Teesta Setalvad is a rights activist and journalist.

This article was first published on The Wire

The post Zakia Jaffri, with her compassion and resilience inspired millions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

New Delhi: Noted individuals and organisations working for civil liberties and human rights held a people’s tribunal in Delhi on Saturday to address the concerns over the implications of two recent Supreme Court judgements in petitions filed by Zakia Jafri and Himanshu Kumar.

The members of the tribunal on “Judicial Rollback of Civil Liberties” consisted of Justice AP Shah (former Chief Justice of Delhi High Court), Justice Anjana Prakash (Former judge of Patna High Court), Justice Marlepalle (former judge of Bombay High Court), Professor Virginius Xaxa (Chair of the 2014 High Level Committee to examine the status of scheduled tribes), Dr Syeda Hameed (former member of Planning Commission).

In the case of activist Himanshu Kumar, the Supreme Court on July 14 dismissed a petition filed in 2009 seeking an independent probe into the alleged extra-judicial killings of adivasis by security forces in Chhattisgarh. Additionally, the top court also imposed a fine worth Rs 5 lakh on the main petitioner, Himanshu Kumar. However, the tribal rights activist has refused to pay the fine.

 Counsels on behalf of the Union government claimed that the petitioners depicted killings carried out by Naxals as being done by the security forces. The division bench of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and J.B. Pardiwala left it to the government of Chhattisgarh to take any action against the petitioners for allegedly making “false charges” under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and even for “criminal conspiracy”.

Speaking to NewsClick, Kumar said: “The order said that Himanshu Kumar’s petition is false, fine should be imposed on it and it was filed to help Naxalites. Supreme Court has also permitted NIA and CBI to file FIRs against us and probe us. However, the current DIG of NIA, Amresh Kumar, was the responsible Superintendent of Police during the massacres in Chhattisgarh. There’s not only a conflict of interest, but he is an accused. The court is telling us that we should rely on their investigation.” he added, “The Supreme Court also accepted an affidavit of the Centre that claimed all those who go to the courts against the security forces are trying to help Naxalite. This means all the human rights activists are criminals and can be jailed.”

 He further said: “Based on what the adivasi petitioners said under pressure while in police custody, that they did not know the perpetrators, the Supreme Court says our petition is false. But instead, they should get it investigated that who actually killed those people.”

 The petition, which was moved by Himanshu Kumar and 12 others, alleged that security forces had shot about 15 tribals from Chhattisgarh’s Dantewada district in the guise of anti-Naxal operations in 2009. Their plea sought an independent investigation into the killings and asked the court to direct the government to provide compensation of Rs 5 lakh to the kin of the deceased.

Collin Gonsalves, counsel for the petitioners, pointed out that while not in police custody, every adivasi petitioner has named the security forces as the perpetrators of the 2009 killings in Gompad and Gachhanpalli villages and even identified police officials involved in it. But the Supreme Court said it found no evidence against the police, Gonsalves added. His statement was corroborated by the victims’ families cum petitioners who spoke at the tribunal.

“The petitioners did not even know whether an investigation took place. How will they? The investigators did not even come and take their statements. And not a single tribal has said that those were attacks by Naxalites,” Gonsalves said.

The adivasis whose kin died or were injured during these alleged operations in 2009, narrated their stories before the tribunal. One of them, Markam Muke, said her husband Markam Sula was dragged out of the house by the police and killed along with two other villagers. After she signed the petition for the probe, the police allegedly picked her up and kept her in custody for a month, she said. “They brought us to Delhi to give statements at the court (Tis Hazari) and told us not to take the police’s name. The police said if we did as they said, they would pay us but if not, they would kill us,” Markam Muke said. She added that she has not received any compensation till now.

In view of this, Justice AP Shah said, “The tribals who are even scared of going to the tehsildar, somehow reached the apex court to seek justice for their people who died. But instead of ordering an independent investigation into the incident, the tribals were told their petition is false, there should be criminal proceedings against them and the main petitioner should pay Rs 5 lakh fine. This is shocking.”

Zakia Jafri Case: ‘SC Failing in its Duty’

In the case of Zakia Jafri, a victim of 2002 Gujarat Riots whose husband and Congress leader Ehsan Jafri was killed in the Gulberg Society massacre, the Supreme Court dismissed her challenge to the closure report filed by the special investigation team (SIT); the order thus dismissed the allegations of a larger conspiracy by high state functionaries. It also slammed the petitioner and Teesta Setalvad, who was a co-petitioner but was not accepted as one by the court, by saying that some people kept “the pot boiling” of the case “for ulterior design” and “all those involved in such abuse of process, need to be in the dock and proceeded with in accordance with the law.” This was followed by the arrest of human rights activist Teesta Setalvad and R.B. Sreekumar, the former additional director general police, by the Gujarat Anti-Terrorism Squad on the basis of an FIR that reportedly draws from the Supreme Court judgement.

Nizam Pasha, Advocate at the Supreme Court, said: “If you want to summarise Article 32 of the Constitution, it says the role of the Supreme Court to question the government’s actions and motivations. But if the Supreme Court starts reprimanding those who are raising questions then is it doing its duty?  It’s failing in its duty. Then we are living in a Banana Republic.” He added, “We are not afraid of the government but the failure of constitutional safeguard on governments powers. What I find problematic in this judgment is the approach ‘how dare you (the petitioners)’.

Giving a clean chit to PM Narendra Modi, the Supreme Court held that the riot was not pre-planned, Pasha said, adding, “However, that was not our argument. We argued such a situation was created by the Sangh and its affiliated organisations that only a matchstick was needed for a riot. And the Godhra incident became that matchstick. The creating of that situation was the conspiracy.”

Advocate Mihir Desai said, “The judgement was not only wrong on merits but also for making observations against Teesta Setalvad, Sreekumar, and others. This is her (Teesta’s) life’s work. There was a huge amount of groundwork done, including staying in camps for days to collect information.” He further said, “The SC says the pot has been kept boiling for 16 years. But on March 1, 2002, the NHRC first took suo motu cognisance and visited Gujarat, and made a report. It said the entire law and order had broken down there. In 2004, the NHRC said eight key trials (of the riots) should be moved out of Gujarat.”

Desai said that Jafri first went to high court with her petition and when that was rejected, she went to the Supreme Court as that is the process. Commenting further on the judgement, he added that “Even in 2008, the Supreme Court while not moving the trials outside Gujarat said it did not want Gujarat police to investigate the cases… We did not start boiling the pot…the pot had been boiling since then.”

Commenting on the two judgements, Justice Anjana Prakash said, “Everyone in the court knows that just because one cannot prove the case for lack of evidence, it does not mean the case is false. This behaviour does not suit the court, it is not by standard procedure and rules. It is very unfortunate.”

At the end of the event, passing observation, tribunal member Justice Prakash said, “The question is not how injustice is being practised, the larger question is how to deal with it. What we heard today is not new. We went to the court for justice, but what has happened is a grave injustice.”

Virginius Xaxa also observed that the recent judgements of the Supreme Court have given immunity to the State and strengthened the executive.

The tribunal was organised by the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reform, People’s Union for Civil Liberties, and National Alliance of People’s Movements.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post ‘Grave Injustice’: People’s Tribunal on SC Judgements in Zakia Jafri, Himanshu Kumar’s Petitions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On November 24, the Day 8 of the Zakia Jafri-CJP Special Leave Petition (SLP) hearing before the Supreme Court bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar, the respondent, Special Investigation Team (SIT) started with the submissions, represented by Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi.

At the outset he stated that he will demonstrate that the SIT conducted the job assigned to it thoroughly, efficiently and examined all material with due application of mind and submitted the report in the “Gulberg Case”.

“There is no material to conclude that there was any conspiracy large or small, except for the cases that have been tried,” Rohatgi started off.

Justification for bringing bodies to Ahmedabad

He gave the court a run-down of the incidents that started from the Godhra carnage on February 27, 2002 and how after the incident, Post Mortem examination of remains of victims was conducted at the Railway Yard calling doctors there, and the decision was made to bring the bodies to Ahmedabad after the then Chief Minister had visited Godhra.

He reasoned that since Sabarmati Express was headed for Ahmedabad and since 33 out of 58 bodies belonged to kin in Ahmedabad, this decision was taken. “A lot has been said about parading of dead bodies. There is no substance in this,” he submitted.

He also denied that the dead bodies were paraded in any manner. He submitted that the dead bodies were not handed over to VHP leader Jaideep Patel, and he merely accompanied the bodies in the trucks which also had a police escort.

No dispute on Tehelka tapes being genuine

Rohatgi, when he started making submissions about Tehelka sting operation tapes, said that the outset, that he was not disputing the genuineness of the tapes. “SIT has not said it is not genuine, but the SIT found the contents of the tape and statements made by the persons before (Ashish) Khetan inspired no confidence, there was no material to support them and some said it was part of a script,” he submitted. Therefore, SIT did not file any FIR or chargesheet but it still submitted the tapes in 3 cases, one of which was the Gulberg trial case. He pointed out that in the Gulberg case, the trial court rejected the sting material or the fact that the sting shows larger conspiracy.

Allegation of late deployment of army

As opposed to the petitioners’ allegation that there was delay in deployment of army and that they were not given access, Rohatgi completely refuted the same. He submitted that on February 28 itself the decision was made to call the army and a fax was sent to the Union Defense Ministry and the army was airlifted and necessary logistics were provided. He questioned why did Lt Gen Zaheeruddin Shah not come before the SIT to depose, when the SIT had called for the public to depose before it. He insisted that there was no material to support Shah’s memoir.

“It was a preliminary inquiry”

“The incident is of 2002, complaint was filed in 2006, assigned to SIT in 2009, closure report is of 2012, Protest Petition of 2013, then trial court’s decision and the High Court’s decision on the same and today we are in 2021. After so many forums it is easy to say that investigation was not done properly,” Rohatgi said.

He reasoned that when the petitioner came before the Supreme Court, since SIT was already in place and Zakia Jafri being resident of Gulberg Society where her husband was killed, the court asked SIT to examine her complaint and take steps according to law.

“The complaint was not an FIR. Supreme Court also didn’t direct FIR. Really speaking it is preliminary inquiry. But SIT still took the burden, and did much more than preliminary inquiry. Technically it was preliminary inquiry, but they did extensive inquiry. They examined 275 witnesses. It was only to ensure that nobody raises finger that they are partisan,” he said.

“You may not agree with their conclusion but they should not be accused of being partisan,” he added.

He then delved into the order passed by the Supreme Court on September 9, 2011 whereby it directed the SIT to file its final report before the court that had taken cognisance of Crime 67/2002 (Gulberg case). He said it was not an independent complaint. “In law, when chargesheet has been filed in court, this complaint in nature of further material, it cannot be FIR. This complaint is only further material in respect of crime occurred i.e. her husband killed in Gulberg,” he said.

“Our job was to see whether there was other credible material in the 2006 complaint to file chargesheet. That is my limit. My limit is to see if there is material against persons who are not already accused, and whether I should file chargesheet against other accused,” he submitted.

On the allegation that the SIT did not examine phone call data, Rohatgi questioned how can mobile phone records of 2002 be examined in 2012. No company keeps records for 10 years. Police Control Room messages are also to be deleted every 5 years, that is the mandate, he said.

Allegation of omission in complaint

Rohatgi alleged that the petitioners have removed Rahul Sharma, SP Bhavnagar, as accused in the complaint submitted to the Supreme Court as annexure. He alleged that the petitioners had named Rahul Sharma as accused in their complaint and then they have “hailed him as a hero” before this court.

The bench questioned whether the original complaint as being presented by Rohatgi was presented to the High Court when it gave its order in November 2007, Rohatgi said he would get back to the court to confirm this.

He pointed out that the complaint of 2006 did not deal with issues focused on by Sibal, like Tehelka tapes, parading of bodies. However, it is pertinent to note that Tehelka tapes were released in 2007 and that several issues argued by the petitioners were brought to light only by materials made available to them by the SIT and this was reiterated by the petitioners in all hearings before this bench.

Transfer of police officers

The petitioners have alleged that certain officers in field executive posts were transferred in the thick of the riots despite the DGP’s objections. Rohatgi argued that investigating this was beyond the prerogative of the SIT, and yet they went ahead and examined these officers who also said that transfers were the government’s prerogative. The bench reasoned that the petitioners were saying that the officers who were maintaining law and order were transferred out, but Rohatgi insisted that the petitioners’ contention was that they were transferred because they were not in favour of the state government.

Rohatgi also pointed out that RB Sreekumar was superseded in his promotions and hence, he turned against the government and brought forth certain materials only after. However, the closure report states that he mentions of assessment reports submitted by him in 2002 itself, and before April 2005, he had filed two affidavits before the Nanavati Commission already, and the April 2005 affidavit presented data on his harassment and victimisation.

Miscellaneous issues

He also alleged that the petitioners’ submission of affidavits submitted before the Nanavati Commission of officers like RB Sreekumar was ‘hearsay’.

He further stated that Arvind Pandya, who said in the Tehelka sting tapes that he was managing defence lawyers in riots case, was not a public prosecutor in any riots cases and was only representing the Gujarat government before the Nanavati Commission.

The Gujarat High Court vide its order November 2, 2007, had ordered that if the petitioner wishes that FIR be registered on her complaint dated June 8, 2006, she should do so under section 190 of CrPC.

About the allegation that Ministers were present in the Police Control rooms during the riots, Rohatgi read through the Closure report of the SIT to give certain justifications that the Minister was made to wait in a separate chamber and the other Minister only probably visited for few minutes, as also statements of few officers who said that the Minister did not visit the control room. Through this, the SIT had concluded that it could not be established whether they were present there. Rohatgi however questioned, what is wrong with Ministers visiting police control rooms?

The hearing will continue on November 25.

Related:

Hate speech was allowed to spread with impunity: Zakia Jafri SLP

Zakia Jafri SLP: More skeletons tumble out of the SIT’s closet

Only SC can bring to life the cold print of the Constitution: Sibal in Zakia Jafri SLP

Zakia Jafri SLP: Were SIT’s acts of omission deliberate?

The post Zakia Jafri SLP: SIT submits it conducted thorough investigation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On November 23, petitioners in the Special Leave Petition (SLP) concerning the conspiracy behind 2002 Gujarat genocide, pointed out the role played by media in keeping up the communal tension, and the active role played by Hate speech and fake news in inciting violence. The Supreme Court Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar was hearing arguments by Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal who was appearing for Zakia Jafri and Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP).

Sibal started with recapitulating from the last hearing, issues like police inaction, mobilisation of large groups of people, non-response of fire brigade, selective preventive arrests, delay in curfew, delay in deployment of army and so on. The petitioners emphasised before the bench that only “undisputed facts have been presented in order to avoid any conspiracy.” Sibal reiterated, “There are two limbs of my arguments: first is undisputed facts and second is where ever there is clear suspicion of conspiracy but no investigation was done.”

Sibal then went on to question why the members of NHRC, Concerned Citizen’s Tribunal, Women’s Parliamentary Committee, not questioned when their reports have corroborated all this material. “In the criminal offence, first thing you do is take statement of victim. Shocking that no statements were recorded,” he pointed out, asking, “Will you call it oversight or turning a blind eye?”

The Bench will hear the submissions of the respondents, SIT, represented by Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi, on November 24.

Denial of access to the Army

The attention of the Bench was then brought to the memoir of Lt Gen. Zamir Uddin Shah who led the army’s “Operation Aman” during the violence. In a Chapter from “The Life and Travails of a Soldier Educationist The Memoirs Of Lt Gen Zameer Uddin Shah” he says,

“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.”

He also gave his opinion on how the situation was managed during the riots,

“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.”

Sibal questioned why Lt Gen Zameer Uddin’s statements were not recorded by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to find out why the access to the army was delayed. The petitioners had attempted to get such information through Right to Information (RTI) applications, but hey were denied the same in “national interest”.

“I daresay had they recorded his statements, he would have said the same things (as he did in his memoir) and it could have come on record,” Sibal said.

Hate speech and its active role in violence

The petitioners have stated, “It is not a coincidence that the National Human Rights Commission, the Editors Guild of India and the State Intelligence Bureau, Gujarat’s SIB Messages, ADGP (Int.) R.B. Sreekumar’s reports and messages of several other SIB officials record the existence of incendiary pamphlets in their multiplicities all over the State of Gujarat in all probability even before the Godhra incident on February 27, 2002.”

“Hate spews out naturally through the media, Magistrate does not deal with it. The government officials told government to take action, till date no action,” submitted Sibal.

Ashok Narayan, ACS (Home) had told the SIT that the government was non-committal in taking action against hate speech. When questioned about letter to the DGP regarding the two pamphlets in circulations in large number in Gujarat for which action was proposed, Narayan had said that the issues were discussed with the DGP, however, “I don’t recollect any action taken thereon. However, it may be added here that several such pamphlets were brought to the notice of DGP myself and Chief Secretary but in such cases the name of the printer/publisher had not been mentioned. Accordingly, we had impressed upon the police to trace out the culprits responsible for these pamphlets but unfortunately no material could be collected in this regard, with the result no action would be taken in this regard.”

Editors’ Guild Fact Finding Mission

This report released on May 3, 2002, found that there were pamphlets and handbills in circulation calling for economic boycott of Muslims which was admitted to Indian Express by Chinubhai Patel, the Gujarat Treasurer for the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). There was also a secret circular by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) listing ways of killing or debilitating minorities. Gruesome colored photographs depicting the charred and mutilated remains of Sabarmati Express victims were reportedly circulated at meetings, accompanied by fiery speeches Hindustan Times had reported. The Guild team was officially given a set of such photographs with provocative captions at the VHP office.

Another publication titled Godhra and After produced by Vishwa Samvad Kendra was given to the Guild team at the VHP office which stated facts that gave reasons to believe that the Godhra carnage was a planned conspiracy. It was stated therein that travelers of a particular religion were asked to get down at the previous station; patients of a particular community were discharged from the Godhra civil hospital and not a single case from that community was registered that day and that most student or teacher of a particular community was present in Godhra schools on February 27. From this it was surmised that not only was the torching of Sabarmati Express a planned attack, but there was forewarning of something untoward likely to happen that fateful day. However, when the Guild team checked these facts with district officials, railway authorities and local journalists, there was no corroboration whatsoever.

The guild’s report says, “The mysterious role of certain Gujarati newspapers cannot be glossed over. Some of them have been named for irresponsible and unethical journalism in the past but have regrettably learned nothing and forgotten nothing. Willful right fence meant to offense, propagation of hate and fueling disorder are criminal offences. We accordingly suggest that a high judicial officer be appointed by the government to examine the writings of those sections of the media that are primer Facey in flagrant violation of the law and recommend what action if any should be taken against them. It is learnt that the Police Commissioner, Vadodara, did in fact seek penal action against a leading Gujarati daily but his superiors did nothing.”

The Guild also concurred with recommendation of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) that provocative statements made by media should be examined and acted upon. “Charlatan of every brand must know that they cannot misuse the media with impunity and get away with it,” the report states.

“Not concerned with prosecuting individuals”

Sibal reiterated bigger concerns in bringing these issues before the court and for invoking the court’s jurisdiction. “I am not concerned with prosecuting individuals. I deal with issues of polity, of how law deals with men who behaved like animals, when properties were burnt, when women were harassed,” he said, asking, “I am looking at my Constitution. Can this be allowed under rule of law?”

“I would love to see where the High Court was dealt with this (issues), the Magistrate or even the SIT. The SIT, Magistrate and High Court were dealing with a few issues – 27th meeting, hate speech by the then CM, castigating Sanjeev Bhat. I am not dealing with any of those controversial issues,” he submitted.

The petitioners have pointed out that the Magistrate order said that it cannot direct further investigation because the SC has not directed so. The High Court said the Magistrate is wrong, you can go back to Magistrate and ask for further investigation.

More examples of Hate Speech

The Concerned Citizen’s Tribunal comprising retired Supreme Court Judges, Justice VR Krishna Iyer and Justice PB Sawant as well as retired Bombay High Court judge, Justice Hosbet Suresh and others, also documented Hate Speech. The report states, “From the news clippings perused and the testimonies collected by the Tribunal, it appears that the deliberate labelling of the miscreants responsible for the Godhra tragedy as ‘anti-national Pakistanis’ was the brainwave of Gujarat’s home minister, Shri Gordhan Zadaphiya, who is also a senior VHP leader. The bogie-burning is a terrorist act similar to the attack on the American Centre in Kolkata. The culprits in both cases are the same, Shri Zadaphiya claimed, and issued a dire threat: We will teach a lesson to those who have done this. No one will be spared and we will make sure that the forces behind this act will never dare to repeat it.”

Some instances of blatant hate speech and misinformation:

Sandesh report: “On March 1, a report titled, ‘Call from the mosque: Slay the non-believers Islam is in trouble’ told its readers: On February 27, at 11.30 a.m., a mosque located along the railway tracks incited a crowd with the call: Slay the non-believers Islam is in danger. Responding to the call, the crowd attacked the surviving Ram sevaks from the torched train compartments, who were sitting by the railway tracks. This, too, was a story without any basis.”

On March 7, 2002 Sandesh carried a report with a damaging headline, suggesting that Indian Muslims returning from the Haj pilgrimage could be a potential terrorist threat to Hindus. Titled, “Hindus in danger! Possibility of attack with terrorists’ support! Frightening scheme of attack by returning Hajis!” The report stated: Various government agencies have received frightening information that, after the Godhra incident, the fear of terrorist attacks is looming.

On March 16, 2002 a page 1 story in Gujarat Samachar titled, “Indiscriminate firing from Fatehganj Mosque” was a complete fabrication.    

Sandesh headline on February 28, 2002:

“Avenge Blood with Blood”

“Around 10 young girls were pulled out from the railways carriage by a group of religious fanatics” (the news item in small print then refutes the headline and Gujarat Samachar said this report was false)

RB Sreekumar’s statement

In another statement of Sreekumar dated July 14, 2009 to the SIT, he submitted that he had sent a report about communal incidents reported on April 21 and 22, 2002 to the Union Home Ministry however, no reply was received. He further states that he had specifically pointed out that reports indicating that extremists of VHP and Bajrang Dal were planning mass action against Muslims in their strongholds, and that the tactics of the assault would be generating fear psychosis in the Muslim population causing migration of minorities from right hit areas.

Also, in his first affidavit on July 15, 2002 he had pointed out that media had played a decisive role in keeping up the communal tension. He stated that he had reported the provocative role of media to the ADG (Int) through different reports in March, April and May 2002 however till he left no action had been taken against any of them by higher authorities.

Officers urging action against hate speech

Another officer whose statements and letters to the government brought to light the real picture of the situation during riots was Rahul Sharma, Police Superintendent, Bhavnagar. In a letter dated, March 9, 2002, he had written to DGP, Gujarat stating that Sandesh newspaper had “aggressively provoked their readers and urged the ‘Hindu public’ and ‘Hindu organisations’ to retaliate in a story published on March 1, 2002. He stated in his letter, “The peace and harmony of Bhavnagar City/District is in danger by this act of publication. So, under the provisions of the press council Act-1965, you are requested to approach the Govt. to take action against this sort of publication.”

Even PB Upadhyay, DCP, Gujarat had written to Additional Chief Secretary (ACS), Home, Gujarat seeking permission to take necessary action as per Gujarat Police Manual against this abovementioned article published in Sandesh.

Relevant cases on hate speech

The petitioners cited Amish Devgan vs Union Of India 2021 1 SCC 1 where the Supreme Court quoted Benjamin Franklin, “It remains difficult in law to draw the outmost bounds of freedom of speech and expression, the limit beyond which the right would fall foul and can be subordinated to other democratic values and public law considerations, so as to constitute a criminal offence. The difficulty arises in ascertaining the legitimate countervailing public duty, and in proportionality and reasonableness of the restriction which criminalises written or spoken words. Further, criminalisation of speech is often demarcated and delineated by the past and recent significant events affecting the nation including explanation of their causes. Therefore, constitutional and statutory treatment of ‘hate speech’ depends on the values sought to be promoted, perceived harm involved and the importance of these harms. 57 Consequently, a universal definition of ‘hate speech’ remains difficult, except for one commonality that ‘incitement to violence’ is punishable.”

It also cited Andre Sellars from his essay ‘Defining Hate Speech’ where he examined the concept of hate speech in different democratic jurisdictions and formulated common traits in defining ‘hate speech’. He says:

·        Hate speech targets a group, or an individual as a member of the group

·        One should be able to objectively identify the speech as an insult or threat to the members of the targeted group, including stigmatising the targeted group by ascribing to it qualities widely disregarded as undesirable

·        Speech should cause harm, which can be physical harm such as violence or incitement and true threats of violence

·        Speech should have no redeeming purpose, which means that ‘the speech primarily carries no meaning other than hatred towards a particular group’

Thereafter, the petitioners also cited State of Karnataka and anr vs. Dr Pravinbhai Togadia (2004) 4 SCC 684, where the Supreme Court held, “Communal harmony should not be made to suffer and be made dependent upon the will of an individual or a group of individuals whatever be their religion bit of a minority or that of the majority… the valuable and cherished right of freedom of expression and speech may at times have to be subjected to reasonable subordination to social interests needs and necessities to preserve the very core of democratic life preservation of public order and rule of law. At some such grave situation at least the decision as to the need and necessity to take private reactions must be left to the discretion of those entrusted with the duty of maintaining law and order and interposition of courts…”

Related:

Zakia Jafri SLP: More skeletons tumble out of the SIT’s closet

Only SC can bring to life the cold print of the Constitution: Sibal in Zakia Jafri SLP

Zakia Jafri SLP: Were SIT’s acts of omission deliberate?

The post High ranking officers’ plea for action against Hate speech unheeded: Zakia Jafri SLP appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Senior counsel Kapil Sibal continued to argue the Zakia Jafri matter today, on October 27, before the Supreme Court bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar. The court will now hear the matter on November 10. 

Zakia Jafri and Citizens for Justice and Peace, have challenged the closure report of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) pertaining to the complaint of June 8, 2006, and the subsequent dismissal of their protest petition by the Magistrate and the Gujarat high court with official evidence from the state intelligence bureau (SIB) and police control room records (PCR).

On June 8, 2006, Ms. Jafri along with CJP had filed a complaint addressed to the then DGP, Gujarat, PC Pande, wherein the complainants had categorically alleged that there was a wide-ranging conspiracy afoot that led to the collapse of the law-and-order situation in Gujarat after the Godhra train burning incident.

Mr. Sibal said that the main grievance is against the Magistrate’s inaction to take cognisance of the offences. He said, “It is undoubtedly true that before a Magistrate proceeds to accept the final report under section 173 of the CrPC and exonerate the accused, it is incumbent upon the Magistrate to apply his mind to the contents of the protest petition and arrive at a conclusion thereafter…the duties of the Magistrate are not limited to the final reports, it is incumbent upon him to look into all materials.”

Sibal argued, “This is the statement of the law,” which was ignored.

Inaction by State actors, yet no investigation

He further argued how the State agencies did very little to control the outbreak of mass violence all over the state in February 2002. “Record after record, I will show this court. There were phone calls made to the fire brigade from the police control rooms. No phone calls were answered. This is part of the SIT, part of official records, but no investigation happened, as to why it was not answered. Fire brigade officials were not questioned, neither were the police functionaries. Intelligence reports record that mobs were allowed to gather, provoke attacks, but no arrests were made under preventive detention. This was not looked at by the SIT or any other authority. These documents were  not analysed,” he said.

The court had interjected to ask whether any individual’s statement was recorded from the fire brigade room. Sibal said, “No My Lords, and that’s my grievance, no investigation happened, no questions were asked to the relevant authorities!”He added that in the closure report, the statement of potential accused persons was recorded and accepted, without thorough investigation. “Is this how investigations should be conducted?” Sibal asked rhetorically.

He further highlighted the obvious lapse in conduct by then DGP, PC Pande (2006) who was earlier Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad in 2002. Pande had access to all the evidence but failed to hand these over to the SIT, investigating the matter till 2011 when further investigation was ordered. “Mr. Pande had the material with him right from the time of the violence in 2002. He gave the material only to the SIT in 2010. We had to come to this court [supreme court] to get all these aspects properly investigated. A petition had to be filed in court and these documents were handed over only in 2010. Nobody has investigated as to why he did not hand over the material sooner. He didn’t hand it over because clearly, he did not want the SIT to investigate these documents, a SIT appointed by the Supreme Court. There is no other explanation,” Sibal told the court.

Sibal reiterated that PC Pande was never questioned as to why he did not hand over any evidence, documents, to the Magistrate and the SIT in the beginning. He contended, “This shows complicity, he had all police records, all control room records…why didn’t he hand it over? Was he trying to protect someone, this needs to be open to investigation. This is a very serious matter. How can he withhold information? His explanations were accepted. Finally, when he handed over the documents, it was not analysed by the SIT and that is the basis of my protest petition [filed in 2013]”.

The court, at this point interjected and said, “Going backwards into the history of 2009 and 2010, may not help us. Closure report was submitted by the SIT, so let us see what was left out by the SIT in their closure report as mentioned in your [petitioners] protest petition. If we move backwards, we will be under the sea. There are so many volumes of documents.” Counsel Sibal quipped back, “We are already under the sea,” but proceeded to point out gross lacunae in the SIT’s closure report.

Kapil Sibal further referred to the Tehelka sting operation that exposes the government authorities’ laxity in management of the law and order situation in the state of Gujarat, which was also ignored by the SIT during the investigation. “The transcripts recorded in the Sting Operation (Operation Kalank, October 2007) have been authenticated by the CBI following an order of the NHRC. Still no investigation happened, these fellows [right wing members] have admitted how there was a build up, arms and bombs were distributed, how they massacred people, still the magistrate doesn’t consider it, the high court doesn’t consider it. The explanation of the accused who participated in the sting, is that they were given a script and they read out from it,” Mr. Sibal informed the court. The SIT, appointed by this court has merely accepted this explanation by potential accused and left it at that, he added.

He then pointed out that this sting was relied on by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) in the Naroda Patiya massacre case, which took place on February 28, 2002, allegedly killing close to 100 Muslims, but was completely ignored in the Zakia Jafri matter. Conspicuously, the same SIT –the prosecuting agency there—even called the person responsible for the Sting Operation as a witness; but here when it comes to wider conspiracy, they have let the matter lie.

He then referred to some witness statements that were not taken into account by the authorities but was never considered. The transcript from the meeting with one Anil Patel, who was the Vibhag Pramukh, Sabarkantha district of Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), was referred to by Kapil Sibal. In his statements, Patel had said that maximum number of FIRs were filed in Sabarkantha, Gujarat, where not even one Muslim home was spared. On February 27, 2002, he said that he was asked to inform the families of the people who died in the Godhra train incident and that he was willing to take action against the Muslims. He had also stated that the VHP activists had decided that they would burn all Muslims (including children) in the district. “None of this was dealt with by anybody. So, houses were burnt in Dhansura district, 126 properties were destroyed. In the entire district there was only one village in which 75 percent of Muslims didn’t return. This is on record but nothing has been done about it,” said Kapil Sibal.

Mr. Sibal further highlighted the lapse by the police in Gujarat, allowing right-wing leaders to take charge of the situation that led to deterioration of public order in the State. He contended that the tragic Godhra killings were used to justify the pre-orchestrated mass carnage that enjoyed political sanction and that the proof of this was recorded by the Citizens Tribunal headed by Justices VR Krishna Iyer, PB Sawant and Hosbet Suresh.

Sibal argued, “My lord a private person was handed over the bodies of persons who were killed and burnt in the train incident. He was Jaydeep Patal, a VHP functionary. Patel had said that it was unanimously agreed that the bodies should be handed over to him. Somebody needs to be prosecuted for this. By the time the bodies reached Ahmedabad in a truck, 3,000 people had already gathered there. Section 144 curfew of the CrPC was still not in place. This calls for serious investigation. How were these bodies handed over to Jaydeep Patel? Under police escort the bodies were taken in trucks, why was this allowed? Contrary to law and procedure, how were dead bodies handed over to a private person like Patel in Godhra? How did people come to know that bodies were arriving in Ahmedabad? The police could have not informed me, I don’t know who did it!”

Sibal further alleged that SIT ignored the fact that I.K Jadeja and Ashok Bhatt, were present in the Police control room during the violence. “Even the local police would not investigate like this. One of them [I K Jadeja], an Urban development minister in the BJP government that time, told the SIT that he never did anything and that was accepted by the SIT,” he said, asking, “Is this was the fashion of investigation that was carried out, why didn’t the Magistrate take cognisance and not direct further inquiry? What is the use of an urban development minister in the police control room?” 

“We have faithfully investigated everything”- SIT

Former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the SIT, interjected to say that the SIT investigated the matter faithfully without any lapses. He said, “The entire protest petition’s allegation is directed against the then Chief Minister of Gujarat. The allegation is that the then CM allowed the mayhem for 72 hours, Mr. Sibal doesn’t want to argue on this point, if he doesn’t want to argue on this, then they have no case!”

Sibal vehemently opposed this argument and said that there were “serious acts of violence, massacre, conspiracy and murders that have not been investigated”. He further said that he was not interested in individual acts and that he was only interested in the acts of the state and that, “the manner in which the SIT investigated the matter was far from established practices. Despite his [Mukul Rohatgi] persuasion, I will not travel into muddy waters.”

“SIT did not do anything”- Mr. Sibal

Senior counsel Sibal referred to the Convenience Compilations filed by the petitioners, and multiple volumes of documents to point out that at multiple locations calls were made for ambulances but they weren’t answered. He contended, “Who’s to investigate this? We’re in 2021, this happened in February, 2002. For 19 years, no one has asked this question. Which accused will say I gave instructions to do things. This has to be investigated. If you accept the accused’s story then might as well not investigate at all. What did the SIT do? Nothing! Nobody was arrested or interrogated.”

Mr. Sibal lastly argued that this is not a civil issue and that even though the SIT gathered information, it failed to apply regular standards of investigation to such a serious matter.  The Petitioners are expected to file four more Convenience Volumes of documents to establish the lapse on the part of the SIT after which arguments will resume on November 10.

The order may be read here:

Related:

Zakia Jafri case: All we want is an investigation, argues senior counsel Kapil Sibal

Modi’s Role in Gujarat Carnage Exposed Through Tehelka’s Sting Operation

Zakia Jafri Case: Bringing the High and Mighty to Justice

What is the Zakia Jafri Case?

Related videos:

Genesis of the Zakia Jafri Case

How the Supreme Court Dealt with the Zakia Jafri Case

Evidence Unearthed in the Zakia Jafri Case

Legal Technicalities in the Zakia Zafri Case

The post Zakia Jafri case: Established standards of investigation not applied in the Gujarat 2002 carnage, argue petitioners appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On October 26, the Supreme Court began hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by Zakia Ahsan Jafri and Citizens for Justice and Peace. Zakia Jafri is the wife of slain congress leader Ahsan Jafri who was brutally murdered in the Gulberg massacre of 2002.

Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners highlighted the main grievance that arises from the closure report filed by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) that failed to take into account, the important evidence related to the case. Senior counsel Sibal said, “SIT was already in seizure of several facts which it did not look at all while filing its closure report…”

He further gave a background to the court that the petitioners had first filed an exhaustive complaint dated June 8, 2006 to the then Director General of Police, PC Pande. The complaint that ran into over 100 pages outlined the contours of a widespread conspiracy that, in the petitioners’ views contributed to the perpetrated violence that broke out in the state from February 27, 2002 onwards, the day of the tragic Godhra mass arson. The complaint has annexed 200 pages of evidence garnered from affidavits filed by serving officers of the state government. Evidence thereafter collated from 24,000 pages of the SIT Investigation records (in 2013) starkly corroborated this evidence.  

Senior counsel Kapil Sibal argued that the Magistrate and the revisional court (the High Court) were duty bound to take cognisance of the offence committed in the State, but they didn’t. He said, “The duty of the court…that’s the central question the lordships will have to decide…once the Magistrate receives information which according to us constitutes an offence, the Magistrate is duty bound to not only look at the information but also take cognisance of the offence.” Hence, the SIT’s decision whether an offence was committed or not is irrelevant, he argued.

He further stated that back on June 8, 2006, the complainant had filed a complaint addressed to the DGP, Gujarat wherein the complainants had categorically alleged that there was a wide-ranging conspiracy afoot that led to the collapse of the law-and-order situation in Gujarat after the Godhra train burning incident. In the said complaint, the petitioners stated that the political establishment and the bureaucracy were complicit in the carnage through overt acts and through omission of statutory duties.

He argued that the evidence in the matter that was part of official records was neither looked at by the SIT, nor the Magistrate and the Gujarat high court. “All we want is that our matter is looked at…if you don’t investigate, just file a closure report, where do we go?”, said senior counsel Sibal. ‘This Republic is too great to deny a person justice,” he stated.

The materials referred to by the counsel involve the records of the state intelligence bureau (SIB), the police exchanges and control rooms (PCR), documents, “If you don’t investigate, don’t look at this, file a closure report and that is accepted, where do we go?”, argued Mr. Sibal.

He further argued that the SIT also didn’t take into consideration the procedure and statements made before Justices (retd.) Hosbet Suresh, PB Sawant. Over the Court’s inquiry upon the reasoning given by the Magistrate to ignore this evidence on record, Sibal said, “The Magistrate stated that he’ll not look into anything else and will stick to the complaint filed by Zakia Jafri. His logic is simple, he is not concerned with any of this.”

Mr. Sibal added, “My lords, our case was that there was a larger conspiracy at play, where there was bureaucratic inaction, police complicity, hate speech and a conspired directed unleashing of violence. The Magistrate said I won’t look at it because the supreme court prevents me from doing that and only look at the Gulberg society case.”

He argued that the investigation, the SIT’s report was not only limited to the Gulberg society massacre but the entire state of Gujarat, including all complaints filed at that time. Sibal vehemently posed that if the purpose of the SIT was to investigate the reason behind the violence of 2002, they should have taken every evidence into consideration.  Reading out extensively from the first Inquiry Report filed by former CBI DIG, AK Malhotra before the Supreme Court (2010) and thereafter the closure report (2012) he detailed how the SIT itself had never restricted its inquiry/investigations only into Gulberg.

“I must have a remedy in law, what is that remedy? The magistrate doesn’t look at it, sessions court doesn’t look at it! The high court doesn’t look at it…Where will anyone go? I’m giving you official evidence and taking you through it. Because of police inaction, people were massacred.”

He pressed that the report of the SIT involved all kinds of crimes that were committed in Gujarat during the anti-minority violence and if this was not considered in its entirety, the rule of law will be threatened. He said, “If we limit it only to Gulberg, what happens to rule of law, what happens to all material? A Republic stands or falls on the basis of what the court does!”

The court will continue to hear the matter on October 27.

Background of the SLP

In 2018, CJP had filed the SLP seeking clarification of the gross anomalies in the judgements of both lower courts (Magistrate and Gujarat High Court) that are both legal and on the facts of this case.

In the present SLP, the petitioners have argued how, the order of the Gujarat HC records that the Magistrate has considered the Closure Report of the SIT and found no substance in the complaint of the Petitioner dated June 8, 2006. Thereafter the Court erroneously goes on to say that the Magistrate provided detailed grounds for not accepting the Protest Petition of Ms Jafri. This, in our submission, is factually incorrect.

It is our case that the Magistrate wrongly held that it was beyond the scope of his powers to direct further investigation. Besides, key and vital issues placed before the Magistrate, detailing our case and making out a sound and substantiated case of criminal conspiracy and abetment, we argue, have been not duly considered by the Magistrate or the High Court.

In the present case before the SC the petitioners (we) argue that it will be abundantly clear from a close perusal of the Protest Petition that the Ms Jafri has substantiated further acts of a larger conspiracy by detailing evidence about the prelude and build-up of a volatile atmosphere prior to February 27, 2002, the post mortems being conducted in the wide open in violation of statutory provisions, no preventive arrests and delayed implementation of curfew in Ahmedabad despite widespread violence from February 27, 2002 onwards, among other issues.

Besides, we argue that, an analysis of Police Control Room (PCR Records) shows Dereliction of Duty by First Responders. The conspiracy, as constructed in the Protest Petition also provides proof of:

• misreporting and misleading constitutional and statutory authorities
• destruction of records relating to Minutes of Meetings, Police Logbooks, Wireless Messages by those at the helm of power in 2002.

It is on these issues as also on the conscious and erroneous clubbing of the Zakia Jafri complaint with the single incident at Gulberg society (that took place on February 28, 2002 and according to us is just one of 300 incidents and one link In the wider conspiracy) that the lower courts have erred and we seek correction and remedy.

Brief Background of the Zakia Jafri case

Zakia Jafri is the widow of Congress MP Ahsan Jafri who was brutally murdered in the Gulberg Society massacre that took place on February 28, 2002 during the post-Godhra genocide in Gujarat. Zakia and Ahsan were sheltering their neighbours from a violent mob during the attack. Ehsan stepped out to plead with the mob for mercy for the people he was sheltering. He willingly sacrificed his own life in the process as the blood thirsty mob tortured and lynched Ahsan Jafri to death. Zakia Jafri, his widow, is no doubt a survivor of this individual incident of pre-meditated violence.

The Zakia Jafri case is a unique and unprecedented litigation that attempts to pin responsibility for the Gujarat 2002 carnage on the people who were in power at the time… people who failed to prevent the spread of violence, and may have done so deliberately. Often confused with the Gulberg Society case, mainly due to the persistence of powerful perpetrators to conflate the two, in a possible bid to derail justice, the Zakia Jafri case is a mammoth legal exercise aimed at holding accountable the architects of a vile and despicable conspiracy. While Zakia Jafri is the prime mover in the case, CJP through its Secretary Teesta Setalvad is the second petitioner. It was CJP that has, since the filing of the complaint in June 2006, assisted the first petitioner in galvanising the entire material that led up to the filing of the Protest Petition in 2013 and thereafter the Criminal Revision Application in 2015. From 2014, Setalvad and her partner Javed Anand became the target of the first attack by the newly elected regime at the Centre for their consistency in trying to bring survivors of the 2002 carnage to justice.

The Gulberg Society case is distinct from the Zakia Jafri case. While the former deals only with the massacre that took place at Gulberg Society, the latter seeks to pin criminal and administrative liability –as also trace command responsibility — for the approximately 300 incidents over 19 districts that made up the shocking genocidal carnage in Gujarat in 2002. 

First complaint (dated June 8, 2006)

On June 8, 2006 Zakia Jafri filed an FIR against 63 people for offences punishable u/s 302 r/w 120-B, of the Indian penal Code with sections 193 r/w 114 IPC, 186 & 153 A, 186, 187 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s Section 6 of the Commission of Inquiry Act; The Gujarat Police Act and The Protection of Human Rights Act [PHRA], 1991. The FIR filed by Zakia Jafri named not only the then Chief Minister of Gujarat and his close associate, who has since then gone on to hold powerful positions such as President of the political party that is in power at the center and Union Minister of Home Affairs, but also several other powerful people including top ministers, MLAs, leaders of right wing supremacist groups, top IAS and IPS officers, and other powerful office bearers in the state’s bureaucracy.

The entire complaint may be read here.

However, this complained did not get any response, forcing Zakia Jafri to file a petition in the Gujarat High Court praying that her complaint be treated as First Information Report (FIR) so that investigation into the wider conspiracy behind the Gujarat riots may begin. But the High Court dismissed this directing Zakia to file a private complaint, a tedious and complicated option.

SLP – 1088 of 2008

This is why Zakia Jafri moved Supreme Court via a Special Leave Petition (1088 of 2008) filed against the impugned judgement and order passed on November 2, 2007 by the Gujarat High Court. The SLP 1088 of 2008 may be read here. Following this the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted to look into the Gujarat Riots cases was also directed by Supreme Court to investigate the claims in this SLP via an order passed on April 27, 2009.

The Supreme Court first appointed noted legal luminary Prashant Bhushan as the Amicus Curiae, but he was later replaced with Raju Ramchandran. Ramachandran was tasked with ensuring that the SIT investigation into the matter was headed in the right direction and conducted in accordance with provisions of the law. The Amicus Curiae filed the following two reports:

Interim Report by Amicus Curiae

Final Report by Amicus Curiae

SIT Report

The SIT also filed its Preliminary Report dated May 12, 2010. The SIT Closure Report dated February 8, 2012 may be read here:

Volume 1

SIT Closure Report Volume 1 Page 1 to 100

SIT Closure Report Volume 1 Page 101 to 200

SIT Closure Report Volume 1 Page 201-270

Volume 2

SIT Volume 2 Page 271-370

SIT Volume 2 Page 371-458

SIT Volume 2 Page 459-541

The SIT Report in case of the killing of Ehsan Jafri was shocking to say the least. Not only did they state that the Call Data Records of Ehsan Jafri were not available, they also blamed Jafri for instigating the violence by discharging a fire arm, towing the Chief Minister’s “action causing reaction” line! There were several other instances of shoddy investigation and glaring lapses.

The SIT filed a Closure Report in 2012, without giving an audience to Ms Jafri as is her legal right. Thereafter she had to petition the Supreme Court again in a fresh SLP.

SLP – 8989 of 2012

This SLP was filed to acquire the full and complete investigation records, reports and documents. The SIT, that had been clearly directed by the Order of the Supreme Court to supply all documents and reports related to the Investigation, in effect resisted and delayed matters to such an extent that between February 8, 2012, when its final report was filed, and February 7, 2013, when the Supreme Court finally directed that all reports should be provided to the Complainant, a year had passed!

This led Zakia Jafri and CJP to file a Protest Petition on April 15, 2013. 

Protest Petition

In the petition Zakia prayed,

That in deciding the Protest Petition the Hon‘ble Court has to exercise its Independent mind on the Final Report submitted by the Investigating Agency. The Court is not bound by the conclusions drawn by the Investigating Agency. The Court has to look at the material to satisfy itself whether prima facie it is a case for taking cognizance of the offence. The material has to be looked at, not from the angle that it is sufficient for conviction but that the material is sufficient for proceeding with the case. The Court cannot adjudicate on the material to find out whether an offence is made out or not, which is the domain when the trial starts and evidence is led by the parties.”

The two parts of the Protest Petition may be read here:

Protest Petition PART I

Protest Petition PART II

It is only after that order of the SC in February 2013, that the CJP legal team analysed close to 23,000 pages of documents that became the basis of the detailed construct and narrative of the Protest Petition. It is through this Protest Petition that the Petitioner has drawn out the lacunae in SIT’s investigation and constructed a more comprehensive and prima facie case for large conspiracy, abetment, dereliction of duty by First Responders and Hate Speech, which in the Petitioner’s opinion, is squarely made from the documents on record.

This Protest Petition was heard over 18 hearings. However, the petition was dismissed on December 26, 2013, when Magistrate Ganatra accepted the SIT Report and rejected the relief sought by Zakia Jafri. 

Gujarat HC Judgement

On October 5, 2017, Hon’ble Justice Sonia Gokani delivered a judgement that once again set in motion Zakia Jafri’s quest for justice. In, her judgement Justice Gokani observed:

It is one thing to say that it is agreeable with the report of SIT and hence, chooses not to direct further investigation. But, to say that in the given circumstances, it does not possess such powers is caring under the awe of events that led the SIT to directly look into the complaint.

Learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court was directed to consider the final report by the Apex Court in its final order and determine whether the collection of evidence compiled with the report of SIT and the Protest Petition cull out a case of lodgment of an FIR, by even explicitly stating the powers to direct further investigation and hence, to that extent, the conclusion drawn is in contravention of established legal principles.”

The court ruled:

… this revision application deserves to be SUCCEEDED PARTLY and the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 16.12.2013 deserves interference to the extent the trial Court held and selflimited itself of its not having powers of further investigation.”

The entire judgement may be read here.

More details about the Zakia Zafri case, concerns raised and legal points made, may be read here.

Related:

Zakia Jafri Case: Bringing the High and Mighty to Justice

What is the Zakia Jafri Case?

Gujarat Genocide: Mystery of the ‘Clean Chit’

Related Videos:

Adv Mihir Desai explains Genesis of the Zakia Jafri Case

Advocate Mihir Desai explains how the SC dealt with the Zakia Jafri Case

Adv Mihir Desai talks about the Evidence Unearthed in the Zakia Jafri Case

Adv Mihir Desai explains the Legal Technicalities in the Zakia Jafri Case

The post Zakia Jafri case: Petitioner asks for an investigation appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Sokalo Gond

Sokalo Gond is an Adivasi forest rights activist dedicated to upholding and defending the rights of forest dwelling indigenous people. She hails from Uttar Pradesh’s heavily forested Sonebhadra district that is home to some of India’s oldest indigenous communities and tribes such as the Gonds. Sokalo is the executive committee member of the All-India Union of Forest Working People (AIUFWP), a sister organisation of CJP working in the field of forest rights.

Despite the passage of the Forest Rights Act (FRA) in 2006 that guarantees Adivasis rights to their forest land, forest dwellers across India have been denied their rights by a power full nexus of politicians, police and industrialists who want to exploit forest land for ‘development’ projects. They have effectively prevented the proper implementation of the FRA marginalising the already vulnerable Adivasis and forest dwellers. What’s worse, they often harass and bully Adivasi leaders by slapping false charges against them and throwing them in prison for long periods in a bid to break their spirit. But with Sokalo Gond, they bit off more than they could chew.

They first arrested her right before a major rally in support of a 100-day nationwide campaign for land and labour rights set to begin. Sokalo was incarcerated her for a month in Mirzapur jail in 2015. Then in 2018, Sokalo and two of her associates Kismatiya and Sukhdev Gond were picked up from Chopan railway station in a clandestine manner. This was shortly after a meeting with State Forest Secretary Dara Singh Chauhan about instances of police brutality against adivasis in Lilasi village where cops rained lathis on breastfeeding mothers and babies!

Sokalo, Kismatiya and Sukhdev’s whereabouts remained unknown until CJP and AIUFWP moved a habeas corpus petition before the Allahabad High Court forcing the police to admit that they had indeed picked up and incarcerated the trio. She was released on bail in November. The intimidation tactics and illegal captivity again failed to break Sokalo’s resolve who remains committed to securing justice for her people.
 

Zakia Jafri

Zakia Jafri is a survivor of the Gulberg Society massacre that took place during the statewide carnage in Gujarat in 2002. She and her husband Ehsan Jafri, a former Congress MP were shielding several Muslim families inside their home when a bloodthirsty mob surrounded them demanding that they give up the Muslim families. A brave Ehsan stepped out to try and reason with the mob, knowing fully well that they would kill him. He sacrificed himself, allowing many others to escape to safety.

But Zakia’s spirit was not broken and with the help of CJP she brought about a mammoth litigation that places accountability for failing to control the spread of violence on some of the most powerful administrators in the state government at the time. The original complaint that was filed on June 8, 2008 also contained over 2000 pages of annexures that provide evidence of not just failure to control violence, but also bad strategic decisions that could point to complicity. After a tortuous journey through lower courts that case that implicates powerful perpetrators who now run the government at the center, is now coming up for hearing in the Supreme Court.
 

HS Phoolka

Image Courtesy Twitter

Harvinder Singh Phoolka, a senior advocate at the Delhi High Court and a Human Rights activist, spearheaded the campaign for justice for the victims and survivors of the 1984 anti-Sikh pogrom. His perseverance and courage paid off when Sajjan Kumar was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Delhi High Court in December.This was a tortuous journey spanning 34 years and riddled with threats and intimidation tactics.
 

Chandrashekhar Azad

On September 14, 2018, after spending over 15 months behind bars, Dalit leader Chandrashekar Azad was finally released from prison. Azad who had been falsely accused of instigating the violence during the Dalit-Thakur caste clashes that took place in Saharanpur in Uttar Pradesh in May 2017, had been booked in 27 cases. He was put behind bars in June 2017. Just a day after securing bail in all cases, he was slapped with charges under the draconian National Security Act.

Chandrashekhar Azad first faced trouble in 2015, when he erected a sign on his property that read ‘The Great Chamars of Dhadkauli Welcome You’, sparking tensions between Dalits and Thakurs. He started organizing Bhim Army soon after this incident and mobilized many young Dalits under the banner. The Bhim Army was founded in 2015 by Azad with the objective of empowering Dalits through education. Bhim Army has gathered a lot of support this year with Azad hosting numerous rallies and events across India and recently launched a national student’s wing.

But trouble followed him all the way to Mumbai on December 28, where fearing his popularity the entire state machinery acted in an unprecedented manner to prevent Azad from interacting with people. First, they denied permission for a rally that Chandrashekhar was to address at Worli’s Jambori maidan just a day before the event and imposed prohibitory orders preventing a gathering of five or more people. Then they virtually held Azad and his supporters captive at the Malad hotel where they were staying. Azad was neither permitted to leave the hotel premises not give interviews to the press.

Finally, in the evening he was taken to Chaityabhoomi in a police convoy as he had expressed his wish to pay respects to Dr BR Ambedkar at his memorial. However, within minutes of reaching the spot Azad and his supporters were herded into a police van and taken for a ride across town! After three hours they were dropped back at their hotel. The entire episode appeared to be a scare tactic. But the harassment did not end there. The following morning, the police not only continued to prevent Azad from leaving the hotel, but also arrested Subodh More, a CPI (M) leader who had gone to meet him. More remained incommunicado and his whereabouts remained unknown for hours before he was released on December 29.
 

Dr. Kafeel Ahmed Khan

Image Courtesy Sabrang India

In August 2017, 23 children died overnight at Gorakhpur’s Baba Raghubar Das Medical College Hospital, allegedly because of an oxygen shortage. Dr. Kafeel Khan, a paediatrician working in the encephalitis ward at the hospital, rushed to arrange for oxygen cylinders, earning respect for his quick efforts.

However, on August 13, 2017, he was removed from his position as a nodal officer, just days after the incident. In September 2017, Dr. Khan was arrested in connection with the children’s deaths and also over corruption charges that have since been dropped. He was set free on bail in April.

Dr. Kafeel Khan, who saved dozens of lives during the Gorakhpur tragedy, is still fighting for justice. In July, his brother was critically injured when bike-borne men shot at him just 500 mts away from Uttar Pradesh CM Yogi Adityanath’s residence.
The suspended paediatrician has to visit the court every 14 days just to sign documents. Every other week he has to shuttle between Allahabad and Lucknow to appear either for the probe on his brother’s attack or for his job. His suspension isn’t being revoked and he isn’t being allowed to serve either.
 

Yashpal Saxena

After a young boy Ankit Saxena was brutally murdered by members of his girlfriend’s family, there were fears that given how this was an interfaith relationship, matters could take a turn for the worse. But Ankit’s father Yashpal showed compassion and restored our faith in humanity when he pleaded with people to not communalize the issue and spread love instead of hatred. Four months after his son was killed, Yashpal Saxena organized an Iftar Party at hid Delhi residence which was attended by around 200 people. It was organized by the Ankit Saxena Trust which was set up by his father to promote peace, help inter-faith couples get married and understand the anger of the youth.
 

Mariam Khatoon

Mariam Khatoon lost her 45-year-old husband Alimuddin Ansari to a lynch mob on June 27, 2017. He was brutally beaten to death by a mob of nearly 100 people who intercepted his vehicle at Bazartand in Ramgarh district of Jharkhand. The assailants accused him of transporting beef in his van. They dragged him outside his van and beat him with sticks and pieces of meat. The mob also set his car on fire.

Ansari left behind six children including three daughters. He was the only earning member in the family. The police investigation found that members of a right wing supremacist group were involved in the murder which was planned and executed with precision. What made his case truly terrifying was the manner in which witnesses were silenced even as the trial was on in court. Alimuddin Ansari’s brother Jalil Ansari who was a witness in the case was unable to depose as he did not have valid identity documents. When his wife Julekha and Alimuddin’s son Shazad went back home to get the necessary documents, their car met with an “accident.” Julekha was killed and Shazad sustained injuries when an unidentified man rammed his bike into their bike. Alimuddin’s family and friends suspect that this may not be an ‘accident’.

In March 2018, a fast tract court in Jharkhand convicted 11 people including a local BJP leader. That’s when Mariam Ansari showed the true strength of her humanity and said that she wanted justice and not revenge. She did not ask for death penalty for the convicts. In an exclusive interview to journalist Ajit Sahi, Marium said, “Though they murdered my husband I don’t want them to lose their lives. I would prefer the court gave them life imprisonment.”
 

Kishorechandra Wangkhem

Kishorechandra Wangkhem, an Imphal based journalist, was arrested by state police under the National Security Act (NSA) on November 26. He was given a 12-month jail term – the maximum period of detention allowed under the Act. He was also sacked from his job. All this because he called Manipur’s CM Biren Singh a BJP puppet.

The former anchor-reporter with ISTV, a local news channel, had criticized the ruling party over an event in November. He condemned the state chief minister N. Biren Singh in his Facebook video. He lashed out at Singh, calling him a “puppet of Modi and Hindutva” for organising a function in Manipur on November 19 to mark the birth anniversary of Lakshmibai, the Rani of Jhansi, who he claimed had “nothing to do with Manipur”. “Do you have any sense of Manipuri nationalism?” he asked in the video. On several occasions during the video, Wangkhem used expletives for Modi and Singh. “Come and arrest me,” he said.

“If we cannot say anything against the government, then, it shows there is no democracy on our land. Arresting me under NSA for speaking against the government should be appropriate only in the times of Hitler. I strongly denounce the detention under NSA and democracy has no place here,” said Wangkhem adding, “Wake Up People! Wake Up! This is a dictatorial rule, this is an autocracy. We need to unite and bring down such a government in the land!”
 

Hadiya

It took a judgment from the Indian Supreme Court to make it clear to a deeply patriarchal society, that an adult woman’s agency must be respected even if her decision may not be aligned with prevalent (and problematic) socio-cultural norms.

Hadiya, a young medical student from Kerala, was previously named Akhila. In December 2016, she married Shafin Jahan against the wishes of her family and subsequently converted to Islam taking the name Hadiya. Her father Asokan then approached the police claiming his daughter was brainwashed into converting to Islam. His allegation ranged from Love Jihad to the conspiracy to turn Hadiya into a sex slave for ISIS!

The National Investigation Agency started probing the ludicrous allegations, that would have never attracted any attention had this not been an interfaith marriage and had myths like Love Jihad been nipped in the bud. But when the flames of anti-Muslim sentiment are allowed to spread, it always ends in disaster. The Kerala High Court showed utter disregard for an adult woman’s choice by calling her marriage a “sham”. The court not only annulled her marriage, but also awarded a grown woman’s ‘custody’ to her parents!

Shafin challenged the judgement in the Supreme Court and the apex court heard her in person in November 2017, where she not only reiterated that she married Shafin of her own free will, and that she converted to Islam without any influence or pressure. Then, in a fitting slap across the face of patriarchy, the apex court struck down a deeply problematic judgement of the Kerala High Court and directed that Hadiya be sent to Shivraj Homeo Medical College in Salem to complete her education. Hadiya sought the court’s permission to live with her husband and their marriage was restored.
 

Subodh Kumar Singh

Subodh Kumar Singh, an honest and upright cop investigating the Mohammed Ikhlaq lynching case. Little did he know, that his end too would come at the hands of alleged cow protection groups. The 47 year old Station House Officer was murdered during the violence that broke out in Bulanshahr after a cow was allegedly slaughtered in the area. Video clips circulating on social media suggest that Singh’s murder was planned and the communal violence served as a cover for the actual crime.

Singh had reached the spot immediately after getting the call about cow slaughter and tried his best to calm the irate crowd. He was joined by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) of Siyana who kept on announcing via a loudspeaker that exemplary action was being taken against those found guilty of killing cows. However, the killers were hiding in the crowd that surrounded them and shot him dead.
 

Gagandeep Singh

The video of a Sikh police officer saving a Muslim man from an attack by a group of Bajrang Dal and Vishwa Hindu Parishad men in Girija village in Nainital, Uttarakhand went viral on social media this year.

A 28-year-old Sikh police officer, Gagandeep Singh, helped save a Muslim youth from an angry mob. On realizing the danger to the man’s life, he immediately rushed towards the crowd and used his own body as a shield to protect the youth from the angry mob. He also refused any financial rewards saying he was merely performing his duty. Singh proved to be the hero India needs today and on August 15, on the occasion of Independence Day, he was awardedg the ‘Frontier Service Respect Mark’ medal by DGP Anil Rathudi.
 

Richa Singh

Former Allahabad University Students Union President Richa Singh who is now a member of the Samajwadi Party was attacked with several of her fellow students’ activists at the Universty of Allahabad. In an exclusive telephonic interview to Sabrang India, Richa Singh said, “They lobbed bombs on campus to spread fear among students. They also categorically told us to stop speaking against the Vice Chancellor.”

The former Student Union President of Allahabad University was arrested on June 19 for protesting against the Hindi exam paper leak along with several other Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC) aspirants and accused of burning a public transport bus.

The fiesty student leader had created history by not just being the first woman president of the AUSU but also ensuring that Adityanath (thereafter to become a chief minister) was kept out of the campus on account of his virulently anti-minority views.
 

Umar Khalid

Umar Khalid

Firebrand student leader Umar Khalid was shot at by an ‘unidentified gunman’ in New Delhi on August 13. The blatant attack that many see as an intimidation tactic, ironically took place when JNU scholar was attending a program titled Khauf se Azaadi (Towards a Freedom Without Fear) at the Constitution Club.

The program was organised by a group called United Against Hate to highlight the increasing number of attacks on minorities, students and rationalists. “There is an atmosphere of fear in the country, and anybody who speaks against the government is threatened,” said Umar with his characteristic calm, less than an hour after being shot at.

Umar Khalid, a student activist and PhD Scholar from JNU, was arrested under charges of sedition and for allegedly raising anti-India slogans at a protest against the hanging of Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru at the Jawaharlal Nehru University.

Agnes Kharshiing and A Sangma

A social activist from Meghalaya and president of the Civil Society Women’s Organisation (CSWO), Agnes Kharshiing and her colleague, A Sangma were attacked by members of suspected coal mafia in Tuber Sohshrieh in East Jaintia Hills, Meghalaya in November.

The incident happened a day after Kharshiing lodged a complaint on coal-laden trucks parked at Mawiong rim in Shillong, which were later seized by the police. Kharshiing has been very vocal against coal mining activities in the state since the NGT ban. In the past, she had exposed rampant mining and transportation of coal despite the ban across the Khasi and Jaintia Hills.

Kharshiing, a well-known activist, and her colleague Sangma were visiting to verify the information they had received – that coal had been mined illegally and transported out of the area in large quantities, despite a state-wide ban on ‘rat-hole mining’.

Sangma and Kharshiing are part of the well-known NGO Civil Society Women’s Organisation and are still recovering from the attack. Kharshiing gave an interview after the attack. The brave account can be read here.

First Published on https://cjp.org.in/
 

The post Human Rights Defenders who made India stronger in 2018 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Press Release

We argue in the present SLP, how, the order of the Gujarat HC records that the Magistrate has considered the Closure Report of the SIT and found no substance in the complaint of the Petitioner dated 8.6.20106. Thereafter the Court erroneously goes on to say that the Magistrate provided detailed grounds for not accepting the Protest Petition of Ms Jafri. This, in our submission, is factually incorrect.

It is our case that the Magistrate wrongly held that it was beyond the scope of his powers to direct further investigation. Besides, key and vital issues placed before the Magistrate, detailing our case and making out a sound and substantiated case of criminal conspiracy and abetment, we argue,  have been not duly considered by the Magistrate or the High Court.

The SIT filed a Closure Report in 2012, without giving an audience to Ms Jafri as is her legal right. Thereafter she had to petition the SC again in a fresh SLP (Nos 8989/2012) to acquire the full and complete Investigation records, reports and documents. These we obtained by order of the Supreme Court on 7.2.2013 after which we were given two months to file the protest petition.

It is only after that order of the SC in February 2013,  that the CJP legal team analysed close to 23,000 pages of documents that became the basis of the detailed construct and narrative of the Protest Petition. It is through this Protest Petition that the Petitioner has drawn out the lacunae in SIT’ s Investigation and constructed a more comprehensive and prima facie case for large conspiracy, abetment, dereliction of duty by First responders and Hate Speech, which in the Petitioner’s opinion, is squarely made from the documents on record.

In the present case before the SC we argue that it will be abundantly clear from a close perusal of the Protest Petition that the Ms Jafri has substantiated further acts of a larger Conspiracy by detailing evidence about the Prelude and Build Up of a volatile atmosphere prior to 27.2.2002, the post mortems being conducted in the wide open in violation of statutory provisions, no Preventive Arrests and Delayed Implementation of Curfew in Ahmedabad Despite Widespread Violence from 27.2.2002 Onwards among other issues.

Besides, we argue that, an analysis of Police Control Room (PCR Records) Shows Dereliction of Duty by First Responders. The conspiracy, as constructed in the Protest Petition also provides proof of the also Reporting and Misleading Constitutional and Statutory Authorities and the  Destruction of Records Relating to Minutes of Meetings, Police Logbooks, Wireless Messages  by those at the helm of power in 2002.

The Gujarat High Court notes in its Order dated 5.10.2017 that,
 

Undoubtedly, the Complaint given in writing to the DGP of the State of Gujarat by Ms Zakia Jafri on 08.6.2006 was for the period between February 27, 2002 to May 2002 where it is alleged that the larger conspiracy of officers and bureaucrats (63 in numbers) for committing the offence under section 302 read with 120(b) of te IPC has resulted into the loss of thousands of lives. Such acts, according to the said complaint, allegedly indicate larger conspiracy for the entire State which has not been restricted to particular case or incident of riot.”

 
However, despite recognizing that the Complaint dated 8.6.2006 and the Protest Petition dated 15.4.2013 dealt with events between February 27 and May 2002, we argue that she however leaves us remedy-less on the vital aspect of no adequate Investigation into the larger conspiracy and disregarding of the same by the Magistrate.

It is on these issues as also on the conscious and erroneous clubbing of the Zakia Jafri complaint with the single incident at Gulberg society (that took place on 28.2.2002 and according to us is just one of 300 incidents and one link In the wider conspiracy) that the lower courts have erred and we seek correction and remedy.

CJP Trustees
 

Related Legal Resources:

Zakia Jafri Protest Petition

Zakia Jafri Protest Petition Part 1
Zakia Jafri Protest Petition Part 2

SIT Preliminary Report

SIT Preliminary Report May 12 2010 (in SLP 1088/2008, Zakia Jafri & CJP versus State of Gujarat)

Amicus Curiae Raju Ramachandran’s Interim and Final Reports

Amicus Curiae Raju Ramachandran’s Interim Report
Amicus Curiae Raju Ramachandran’s Final Report

SIT Closure Report dated 8.2.2012

Volume 1

SIT Closure Report Volume 1 Page 1 to 100
SIT Closure Report Volume 1 Page 101 to 200
SIT Closure Report Volume 1 Page 201-270

Volume 2

SIT Volume 2 Page 271-370
SIT Volume 2 Page 371-458
SIT Volume 2 Page 459-541
The following India Today piece was on the basis of EXCLUSIVE INVESTIGATION by our team (CJP) for the Zakia Jafri Protest Petition. The probe uncovered the messages from the police control room and the state intelligence bureau reports showing that the cops had received various inputs about crowds being mobilised and warnings of the possibility of major riots breaking out.
Probe reveals Gujarat Riots were not spontaneous and sudden

Related Videos:

Adv Mihir Desai explains Genesis of the Zakia Jafri Case
Advocate Mihir Desai explains how the SC dealt with the Zakia Jafri Case
Adv Mihir Desai talks about the Evidence Unearthed in the Zakia Jafri Case
Adv Mihir Desai explains the Legal Technicalities in the Zakia Jafri Case

Related Reports (NHRC, CEC, Editors’ Guild 2002)

NHRC Reports (March – July 2002)

NHRC Report July 2002
NHRC INterim Report April 1- 2002

CEC Report (August 2002)

CEC Report on Gujarat Violence
Election Commission August 16 2002 Order Postpones Elections

Editor’s Guild Report 2002

Excerpts from Editors Guild Report 2002
Judgement Primer on ZAHIRA HABIBULLAH SHAIKH V/S STATE OF GUJARAT 2004
The 2004 Best Bakery Judgement and its Significance
 

The post Zakia Jafri Case back in the Spotlight appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
The Court however, relying on adverse comments of the Supreme Court in ex IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt’s case, refused to accept the arguments on criminal conspiracy.
 
CRA 205/2014 has therefore been partly allowed. The petitioners have the leave to either go back to Magistrate or to the High Court (where Gulberg Appeal is being heard)
 
Unlike media representations so far, the matter will now be left to the petitioners to further agitate.
The Judgement in the ZakiaJafri Case –a criminal revision application filed  by the survivor, ZakiaJafri,  earlier been deferred. That day asked the SIT counsel, RatanKodekar to be present as she wished certain c;arifications.
 
Thereafter, after sitting again, first at 1 p.m. and then again at 2.30 p.m., counsel Mihir Desai (for ZakiaJafri) and SIT counsel, Vaidyanathanwere asked to remain present  They were present on September 8. Earlier the judgement had been fixed for Orders on August 21, 2017 and thereafter on September 26.
 
Judge Gokhani read out only operative parts of the Order today..
 
What is the case all about?

Read Here
JUDGEMENT DAY, Tracing Chain of Command Responsibility for 2002: ZakiaJafri Case
 

The post Zakia Jafri Case: Criminal Revision Application Partly Allowed appeared first on SabrangIndia.