Read Time: 09 minutes

The Supreme Court while dismissing the plea challenging the clean chit given to Narendra Modi in the Gujarat riots that followed the Godhra Carnage in 2002, has observed that the testimony given by Sanjiv Bhatt, Haren Pandya and R.B. Sreekumar was only meant to sensationalise and politicise the matters.

Court has noted that these testimonies are 'replete with falsehood.'

A plea was filed by Zakia Jafri, wife of Congress MP Ehsan Jafri who was killed in the riots, challenging the ‘clean chit’ given to then Chief Minister and current Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi by the Special Investigation Team (SIT).

Sanjiv Bhatt, in his testimony, had claimed that he attended a meeting chaired by the then chief minister Narendra Modi. He alleged that in the meeting, Modi had asked the officials to allow the Hindu anger to vent on the minority in the wake of Godhra incident.

Bhatt further alleged that the meeting was held on February 27, 2002 at Gandhinagar.  RB Sreekumar testified the same in his affidavit. Late Haren Pandya, former Minister had also filed an affidavit to this effect.

These testimonies were relied on by Zakia’s counsels before the Supreme Court to allege a larger conspiracy at the highest level during the riots.

A bench of Justices Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Ravikumar accepted the report of Supreme Court appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) in this regard which stated that neither Sanjiv Bhatt nor Haren Pandya were present in the stated meeting chaired by the then Chief Minister Modi.

Similarly, even RB Sreekumar had no personal knowledge as he did not attend the said meeting. Besides, Sreekumar was a disgruntled officer, the Court was told.

The judgment further records that, the SIT has in its report said that the allegations of larger conspiracy were all false claims set up by Sanjiv Bhatt.

According to the judgment, SIT analysed the claim of Bhatt that he was present in the meeting. It had referred to official records including the call records of Bhatt's mobile phone. Upon analysing the same, it had concluded that he had set up a false plea of being present in the meeting. The SIT has adverted to the materials collected during investigation clearly reflecting on the conduct of Sanjiv Bhatt including his false claim of being present in the meeting.

SIT had further recorded that the allegations in the complaint filed by Zakia Jafri, in 2006 were mostly based on affidavits filed by R.B. Sreekumar before the Nanavati-Shah Commission.

In this regard, the top court said that investigation revealed that the contents of his affidavit were not on the basis of his personal knowledge. It had been recorded that Sreekumar claimed to have acquired information after he was posted at Additional Director General (Intelligence) in April, 2002.

The investigation further revealed that Sreekumar, had not made any adverse comment against the Government in his initial two affidavits. However he started doing so from his third affidavit in 2005, presumably, after being superseded by his junior K.R. Kaushik in 2005.

It has also been recorded that this was owing to a pending criminal case against him initiated by the JMFC, Bhuj. The SIT investigation also revealed that the allegations made by him were found to be false or not based on his personal knowledge nor could be duly corroborated despite best efforts of the SIT.

The court, on considering the investigation report, came to a conclusion that “For, persons not privy to the stated meeting, where utterances were allegedly made by the then Chief Minister, falsely claimed themselves to be eye-witnesses and after thorough investigation by the SIT, it has become clear that their claim of being present in the meeting was itself false to their knowledge. On such false claim, the structure of larger criminal conspiracy at the highest level has been erected. The same stands collapsed like a house of cards, aftermath thorough investigation by the SIT."

In addition to this, the court recorded the arguments of the respondents, stating that "Teesta Setalvad had been vindictively persecuting this lis for her ulterior design by exploiting the emotions and sentiments of Zakia”.

The court has further held that proceedings have been pursued for the last 16 years to "keep the pot boiling, obviously, for ulterior design".

Case Title: Zakia Ahsan Jafri vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.