Read Time: 06 minutes

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for the Special Investigation Team appointed by the Supreme Court in the Gujarat riots 2002 case has told the Court today that the petitioners have mixed up the investigating agency and Court, and that the Court is in fact the final authority.

"Role of Investigating Officer (IO) and the Court are completely different. The IO cannot go to Court and say I have a suspicion. As far as the IO is concerned a charge-sheet has to make a crystallised case against a party", added Rohatgi.

Rohatgi further submitted that the Court would look at the charge-sheet, and then decide whether to accept it and direct further investigation or reject the same.

Referring to the material of the Tehelka sting operation that was relied on by the petitioners, Senior Advocate Rohatgi said,

"...there is no doctoring in the sting, but what the probative value of the sting is, is another thing. In law it is in the nature of an extra-judicial confession."

It was further argued that strong words were used against the SIT, that they were shielding people, but in fact the Supreme Court had told the SIT to take up the 9 cases for further investigation in 2008.

"We did our job. We were commended by Supreme Court," he said.

While concluding his arguments, Rohatgi submitted that no fingers were raised against the SIT, though ample opportunity lay with the petitioner to raise objections.

"To now start a fresh investigation... no material is available on ground, convictions have taken place", he submitted.

Rohatgi also reiterated his submissions of the petitioners wanting to keep the pot boiling because of their ulterior motives.

When the matter was taken up for hearing today, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for the petitioner Zakia Jafri, wife of late Congress Member of Parliament (MP) Ehsan Jafri, challenging the “clean chit” given by the SIT to the then Chief Minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi in cases related to the 2002 Gujarat Riots also made submissions before the Court.

Sibal today argued before Court that criminal law takes cognizance of offences and not offenders. He said,

"...(There are) very few times in the history of this court ....when majesty of law is tested. I am not interested in targeting anybody, under criminal law you take cognizance of offences and not offenders."

The parties concluded their arguments today, and have been directed to file notes and relevant documents within one week.

On Tuesday, Sibal asked a bench of Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice CT Ravikumar how the SIT could defend the accused by saying that they were bragging when they made those statements in the Tehelka tapes.

The Court was further told that the actions of the SIT were a complete cover up.

Earlier, Sibal had told the Court that Tehelka tapes showed that the 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.

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