http://www.indianexpress.com/news/basis-to-prosecute-modi-for-gujarat-riots-sc-amicus/864452/
Basis to prosecute Modi for Gujarat riots: SC amicus *Krishnadas Rajagopal<http://www.indianexpress.com/columnist/krishnadasrajagopal/> **Posted: Mon Oct 24 2011, 01:35 hrs**New Delhi:*Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi’s alleged instructions to his officials to allow Hindus to vent their anger after the Godhra attack may not amount to conspiracy to murder but could form the basis of prosecution under various Sections including 153 A, 153 B, 505 and 166 of the IPC. These deal with statements promoting enmity between communities, imputations and assertions prejudicial to national integration, statements conducing to public mischief, and public servant disobeying a direction of the law with the intent to cause injury. This is said to be among the key conclusions of the report prepared by Supreme Court amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran on the circumstances around the key events of the Gujarat riots in February-March 2002. The report is also said to have underlined that there is enough reason to further examine the claims of IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt about that meeting with Modi on February 27, 2002, and the presence of two ministers in the control room during the post-Godhra riots. Ramachandran’s report, sources said, clearly highlights a “difference in perception” with the Special Investigation Team (SIT) on the role of Modi and his state machinery in the riots. This when Ramachandran relied on the same material that the SIT had access to. In fact, the senior lawyer, whose brief was to give an independent legal perspective of the investigation findings, finds chinks exactly at the spots where the SIT chose to stop its probe. What the SIT dismisses as unreliable, Ramachandran’s report disagrees to find them “probable”. His report is confidential. The first of such “difference in perception” which the lawyer has with the investigation team is about Bhatt’s claim that he was present at the meeting held at the CM’s residence in which Modi allegedly instructed the state DGP, chief secretary and other senior officials to allow Hindus to freely vent their anger at the Muslims for the Sabarmati train burning in Godhra. Sources said that although the amicus finds that these instructions may not attract any “high-sentence” criminal offences, he rejects the SIT’s dismissal of Bhatt as an unreliable witness just because the other officials present at the meeting deny his presence or have suffered memory lapses. The lawyer is said to have disagreed with the basic reasons listed by the SIT to find Bhatt’s claim unreliable: That he (Bhatt) is “controversial”, has grievances against the state government, that he kept quiet about his alleged presence at the meeting and has affiliations with the Opposition party leaders. Ramachandran, in his turn, is said to have listed a number of factors which indicate that Bhatt’s presence at the February 27 meeting was probable, sources said. These are: Bhatt was after all an intelligence officer; his chief, G C Raignar, was admittedly absent at the meeting and the nature of the February 27 meeting — urgently called at 10.30 pm while the situation of violence was fast-escalating — would only make his presence logical. The amicus, sources said, suggested that the pros and cons regarding Bhatt’s claims have to be tested in a proper legal proceeding. For this, he says, both Bhatt and those who deny his presence have to be put in the witness box. The second instance of “difference” between Ramachandran and the SIT is with regard to the presence of two ministers, Ashok Bhatt and I K Jadeja, in the police control rooms, sources said. Jadeja was present at the Ahmedabad and state PCRs while Bhatt was in the city PCR. The SIT concludes that though the ministers were present in the control rooms, there is no evidence to show that they interfered or gave directions to the police personnel manning the control rooms during the riots. Ramachandran, sources said, takes it forward to ask whether the very presence of two ministers unconnected with the state Home portfolio had a dampening effect in the control rooms. He suggests that their presence would “probablise” some kind of a message from the Chief Minister to go soft on the rioters, though there is nothing on record to show any such communication from the CM to the ministers. Besides, both Bhatt and Jadeja were also not present at the February 27 meeting. The third instance deals with the SIT’s recommendation of only disciplinary action against then joint commissioner of police, Sector 2, Ahmedabad, M K Tandon, whose area was one of the worst riot-hit, and his deputy and DCP PB Gondia. Ramachandran’s report asks whether disciplinary action is sufficient, sources say. He suggests that the “omissions and commissions” of the two officers were sufficiently grave to constitute criminal misconduct. -- 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.
