Read Time: 06 minutes

While arguing before the Supreme Court today in the case filed by Zakia Jafri challenging the ‘clean chit’ given to then Chief Minister Narendra Modi by the Supreme Court appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) in the 2002 Gujarat Riots,

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal told the court that Tehelka tapes showed that lawyers who were Public Prosecutors revealed “things” that members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) had done and that it would shock the conscience of the Court.

“But the SIT said, how does it matter”, he added.

Sibal further argued that if there was any build-up by VHP, the same was to be investigated.

Referring to SG Mehta’s argument that the State had done whatever it could to manage the situation, Sibal submitted that if everything was hunky dory in Gujarat, then why would the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) have sought transfer of trials.

A bench of Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice CT Ravikumar was further told that the SIT had placed reliance on statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC whereas the same could not be done.

“None of the material can be used in any trial. I am really surprised, before this Court, SIT had been using statements as if these are findings of facts…”, Sibal added.

Sibal further submitted that while arguing in the Gulbarg Case, the SIT had pleaded a case of larger conspiracy, but now they had changed their stance.

“Times change, laws change. Changing stands and changing positions are the order of the day. How can an SIT which pleaded conspiracy say that there was no conspiracy now?”

The Court was further told that recordings of the Commission Enquiry could not be quoted before court as those findings were inadmissible before a court of law.

In the beginning of the hearing today, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had made submissions on behalf of the State of Gujarat.

SG Mehta told the Court that a Commission of Enquiry was set up under the Enquiries Act which had looked into the preventive steps taken by the State.

He submitted that police forces were put on alert, and all forces acted diligently.

“Nobody’s has said that the guilty has gone scot-free. In the name of Petitioner No.1 , petitioner No. 2 wants to keep the pot boiling, which would be a travesty of justice. Your lordships may not allow this petition”, said SG Mehta while concluding his submissions.

Last week, SG Mehta had submitted that the state had nothing against the widow but the present case was nothing but the exploitation of the widow's tears.

Cause Title: Zakia Ahsan Jafri and Anr. Vs. The State of Gujarat and Anr.