Today's Paper

Court to SIT: probe plea against Modi

Narendra Modi

Narendra Modi  

J. Venkatesan

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Special Investigation Team to probe a complaint against Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi that he and his Cabinet colleagues orchestrated the post-Godhra communal riots in 2002 in connivance with police officials and senior bureaucrats.

A two-judge Bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and A.K. Ganguly asked the SIT to look into the complaint by Jakia Nasim Ahesan, wife of the former Congress MP, Ehsan Jafri, and submit its report in three months.

Prashant Bhushan, counsel for the petitioner, said that no First Information Report was registered on the basis of the complaint dated June 8, 2006 sent to the then Gujarat Director-General of Police. Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi for Gujarat said all complaints in respect of Gulberg Society/Naroda Patiya were investigated by the SIT.

Mr. Justice Pasayat also observed that all complaints were probed by the SIT. However, when Mr. Bhushan pointed out that the complaint of Ms. Ahesan was not registered as an FIR, the Bench asked the SIT to look into it and submit a report in three months.

The thrust of the allegations was that there was a conspiracy involving Mr. Modi and other Ministers, senior police officers and officials to commit acts after the Godhra train fire which would provoke and fan communal mob violence in the State and for conspiring to render the police and security force inactive to aid and abet the commission of crimes of mass mob violence in the wake of the tragedy.

It was further alleged that Mr. Modi and other senior officials encouraged those deposing before the Justice Nanavati Commission to depose falsely about the incidents and to withhold the truth from the Commission and also from the courts.

The petitioner said that when the DGP did not register an FIR on the basis of the complaint, she moved the Gujarat High Court, which dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the allegations were too general and not backed by sufficient evidence to warrant investigation. The SLP is directed against this High Court order.

The SLP said the allegations in the complaint were entirely different from those contained in the FIRs investigated by the SIT.

Recommended for you