Sanjiv Bhatt, like other whistleblowers, should be hailed by the anti-corruption movement for refusing to bow to threats and refusing to sell his conscience for the sake of promotions and security. He has taken risks to uphold the constitution and justice. Corruption, after all, is not only about bribe taking. Is it not the worst form of corruption for a CM to order the sate machinery to shed its impartiality and its mandate to prevent riots, and instead to foment violence against minorities; and then to 'punish' those officers who persisted in their duty with punishment transfers? Is it not corruption for the SIT to intimidate a truthteller and honest officer in order to protect wrongdoers in the Govt?
On 22 April 2011 16:41, Sukla Sen <[email protected]> wrote: > I/II. > > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Top-cop-says-Gujarat-CM-Narendra-Modi-involved-in-Godhra-case/articleshow/8056304.cms > > > <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Top-cop-says-Gujarat-CM-Narendra-Modi-involved-in-Godhra-case/articleshow/8056304.cms>Top > cop says Gujarat CM Narendra Modi involved in Godhra case > Agencies | Apr 22, 2011, 02.31pm IST > > NEW DELHI: Senior IPS officer Sanjay > Bhatt<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/search?q=Sanjay%20Bhatt>, > who was posted in the Intelligence Department, has filed an affidavit in the > Supreme Court accusing Gujarat chief minister Narendra > Modi<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Narendra-Modi> of > complicity in the 2002 Godhra case. > > Bhatt in his affidavit states that he was that he attended a meeting held > at the chief minister's residence on February 27, 2002. > > Stating that the senior police officials had blindly followed Modis > instructions in 2002, the officer in his affidavit further stated that this > was responsible for the deterioration in the law and order situation in the > state. > > The officer claimed that he has filed this affidavit in the apex court > because he has no faith in the Special Investigation Team ( > SIT<http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/search?q=SIT>) > appointed to probe the case. > > Bhatt has also made a request to the apex court to provide protection to > him and his family. > > A special court in Ahmedabad had on March 1 awarded death penalty to eleven > accused and life imprisonment to 20 others in the 2002 Godhra train burning > case. > > Earlier on February 22, the court convicted 31 and acquitted 63 others, > including the prime conspirator Maulvi Hussain Umarji > > Apart from the charges of murder, attempt to murder and criminal > conspiracy, the accused were convicted under IPC sections 147, 148 (rioting > with deadly weapons), 323, 324, 325, 326 (causing hurt), 153A (promoting > enmity between different groups on religious grounds), various sections of > the Indian Railways Act, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and > Bombay Police Act. > > The court pronounced judgment on the role of over 90 people accused of > conspiring and burning the S-6 coach of the Sabarmati Express on February > 27, 2002. Fifty-nine people, mostly Kar Sewaks returning from Ayodhya, were > killed in the incident. > > Following the Godhra train burning incident, widespread communal riots > broke out in various parts of Gujarat in which over 1,000 people, mostly > from the minority community, were killed. > > II. > http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/other-states/article1716148.ece > > AHMEDABAD, April 22, 2011 > > <http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/other-states/article1716148.ece> Show > cause to Gujarat official in Ishrat caseMANAS DASGUPTA > > For delaying the transfer of three police officers > > The Gujarat High Court on Thursday issued show cause notice for contempt > proceedings to the Additional Chief Secretary of the State Home Department > for delaying transfers of three top police officers, who the court believes > could have influenced the Special Investigation Team (SIT) appointed by it > to probe the Ishrat Jahan case. The notice is returnable on May 11. > > The Division Bench, comprising Justices Jayant Patel and Abhilasha Kumari, > issued the show cause while hearing the status report filed by the SIT. > > The court had directed the government last year to transfer the Additional > Director General of Police, P. P. Pandey, who was heading the State CID > (Crime), Superintendent G. L. Singhal, heading the State Anti-Terrorist > Squad, and Deputy Superintendent Tarun Barot, who was heading the Special > Operations Group, Ahmedabad, all members of the Ahmedabad Crime Branch when > Ishrat and three others were killed in the “encounter.” The transfer orders > to them were issued only earlier this week and that too after the Bench gave > a stern warning to the State government. > > *‘Bid to hamper probe'* > > Mr. Justice Patel told Advocate-General Kamal Trivedi that *prima facie* the > State did not comply with the court's order and it would initiate contempt > proceedings against the official responsible for it. “There is material on > record to suggest that the police officers were not transferred even when > the Central Forensic Team and the team from the All India Institute of > Medical Sciences, Delhi, visited the encounter site this Sunday. *Prima > facie* it seems to be an attempt of the State to hamper the > investigation,” Justice Patel noted. > > The Bench also agreed to relieve SIT chairman Karnail Singh, who has been > transferred to Mizoram, and instead directed State cadre IPS officer Satish > Verma to lead the investigation. It asked the other State cadre IPS officer, > Mohan Jha, to look after the administrative matters relating to the SIT. The > court also gave unbridled powers to Mr. Verma to “question anyone and arrest > anyone” he felt fit based on the evidence available. > > The court had earlier expressed its strong dislike over the rivalry between > Mr. Verma and Mr. Jha in investigating the case. While asking the Central > government to name an officer higher in rank than Mr. Verma and Mr. Jha, to > be appointed SIT chairman in place of Mr. Karnail Singh, the former Delhi > Joint Police Commissioner, the court also directed the State government to > spare any officer named by Mr. Verma to assist him in the investigation. The > officer named by Mr. Verma, however, should not in any way be connected with > the Ishrat encounter of June 2004, the court said. > > Instead of allowing registration of a second FIR in the case, the court > asked the SIT to conduct the probe at this stage based on the first FIR. The > court also concurred with Mr. Karnail Singh's earlier submission seeking > direction to the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) to provide the SIT with > a report it had sought in connection with the case. Mr. Justice Patel told > Central government counsel P.S. Champaneri that if the NIA had any > difficulty in furnishing the information, it should be reported to the > court. The next hearing in the case has been slated for May 12. > > -- > Peace Is Doable > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Green Youth Movement" group. > To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB. > -- Kavita Krishnan 9560756628 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB.
