Gujarat 2002 SIT Report amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran recommends PROSECUTE NARENDRA MODI Gujarat Chief Minister
Gujarat 2002 SIT Report amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran recommends PROSECUTE NARENDRA MODI Gujarat Chief Minister
Updated on May 7, 2012
The SIT probe against Modi and his government was ordered by the Supreme Court in 2009 while hearing a petition filed by Teesta Setalvad’s Citizens for Justice and Peace and Zakia, the widow of slain Congress leader Ehsan Jafri
Zakia had made 32 specific allegations against Modi and other BJP functionaries, bureaucrats and police officers.
The most serious allegation was that Modi had given instructions to the then DGP, chief secretary and other senior officials to allow Hindus to freely vent their anger at the Muslims for the Sabarmati Express carnage.
This instruction was allegedly given at a meeting held at the chief minister’s bungalow in Gandhinagar on 27 February 2002 after Modi’s visit to Godhra.
Meaning of amicus curiae –
The amicus curiae figure originates in Roman law
Starting in the 9th century it was incorporated to English law, and was later extended to most of common law systems.
Later, it was also introduced in international law, in particular concerning human rights.
A court can appoint amicus curiae in any matter of general public importance
or in which the interest of the public at large is involved.
Amicus curiae is a legal Latin phrase, literally translated as “friend of the court”, that refers to someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information on a point of law or
some other aspect of the case to assist the court in deciding a matter before it.
The information may be a legal opinion in the form of a brief, testimony that has not been solicited by any of the parties, or a learned treatise on a matter that bears on the case.
The decision whether to admit the information lies with the discretion of the court.
If a petition is received from the jail or in any other criminal matter if the accused is unrepresented then an Advocate is appointed as amicus curiae by the Court to defend and argue the case of the accused.
In civil matters also the Court can appoint an Advocate as amicus curiae if it thinks it necessary in case of an unrepresented party.
RAMACHANDRAN’S RECOMMENDATION: PROSECUTE NARENDRA MODI!
Contrary to media reports over the past week, amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran had not concurred with SIT Chairman RK Raghavan in giving a “clean chit” to Modi or even for filing for closure on Modi’s culpability in the Gujarat 2002 case.
Instead, in an explosive and damning confidential report, now scooped by Tehelka Investigations Editor Ashish Khetan, the senior Supreme Court lawyer had recommended chargesheeting and prosecuting Modi under
sections 153A, 153B, 166 and 505 of the Indian Penal Code for incitement to communal violence, promoting religious enmity, doing acts prejudicial to national integration and maintenance of harmony and deliberately and wantonly disobeying the law with intent to cause injury. If convicted, some of these offences carry a maximum jail term of upto 3 years.
Interestingly, Ramachandran had come to these conclusions based on the detailed findings of the SIT report itself. In a hard-hitting statement, while recommending chargesheeting Modi, he said, there was enough evidence gathered by the SIT team itself, and it was “illogical and legally untenable” to come to any other conclusion. Contrary to SIT Chairman RK Raghavan’s concluding remarks which had recommended closure; he felt there was enough prosecutable evidence against Modi to put him on trial under these sections of the IPC. Among the grounds on which he agreed with Raghavan was that, based on the material the SIT team had gathered so far, there was no prosecutable evidence, as yet, to charge Modi of a conspiracy.
However, in a highly significant recommendation, he also said it was premature to discard police officer Sanjeev Bhatt’s allegation against Modi and his presence at the crucial 27 February 2002 meeting at which Modi is alleged to have told his officers to allow Hindus to “vent their anger”. He felt the truth of this could only emerge through weighing the evidence at the trial stage.
Raju Ramachandran made many other significant and strong observations against the Modi administration. His confidential report to the Supreme Court raises serious questions about SIT Chairman RK Raghavan’s insistence on filing for premature closure, despite the damning evidence gathered by his own SIT team.
Know IPC sections –
Section 153A. Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony
[153A. Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.—(1) Whoever—
(a) By words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place or birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or
(b) Commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility, 2[or]
2[(c) Organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence of knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community and such activity for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community,] Shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Offence committed in place of worship, etc. — (2) Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (1) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.]
CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE
Para I
Punishment—Imprisonment for 3 years, or fine, or both—Cognizable—Non-bailable—Triable by any Magistrate of the first class—Non-compoundable.
Para II
Punishment—Imprisonment for 5 years and fine—Cognizable—Non-bailable—Triable by Magistrate of the first class—Non-compoundable.
IPC 153 B –
Section 153B. Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration
1[153B. Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration. — (1) Whoever, by words either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, -
(a) Makes or publishes any imputation that any class of persons cannot, by reason or their being members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, bear true faith and allegiance to Constitution of India as by law established or uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, or
(b) Asserts, counsels, advises, propagates or publishes that any class or persons shall, by reason of their being members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, be denied or deprived of their rights as citizens of India or
(c) makes or publishes any assertion, counsel, plea or appeal concerning the obligation of any class of persons, by reason of their being members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, and such assertion, counsel, plea or appeal causes or is likely to cause disharmony or feelings of enmity or hatred or ill-will between such members and other persons, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(2) Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (1), in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.]
CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE
Para I
Punishment—Imprisonment for 3 years, or fine, or both—Cognizable—Non-bailable—Triable by Magistrate of the first class—Non-compoundable.
Para II
Punishment—Imprisonment for 5 years and fine—Cognizable—Non-bailable—Triable by Magistrate of the first class—Non-compoundable.
IPC section 166 -
Section 166. Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person
Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will, by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Illustration
A, being an officer directed by law to take property in execution, in order to satisfy a decree pronounced in Z's favor by a Court of Justice, knowingly disobeys that direction of law, with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause injury to Z. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE
Punishment—Simple imprisonment for 1 year, or fine, or both—Non-cognizable—Bailable—Triable by Magistrate of the first class—Non-compoundable.
IPC section – 505
Section 505. Statements conducing to public mischief
[505. Statements conducing to public mischief.—2[(1)] Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumor or report,—
(a) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, any officer, soldier, 3[sailor or airman] in the Army, 4[Navy or Air Force] 5[of India] to mutiny or otherwise disregard or fail in his duty as such; or
(b) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquility; or
(c) with intent to incite, or which is likely to incite, any class or community of persons to commit any offence against any other class or community,
shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to 6[three years], or with fine, or with both.
7[(2) Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes.—Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing rumor or alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Offence under sub-section (2) committed in place of worship, etc.—Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (2) in any place of worship or in an assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.]
Exception.—It does not amount to an offence, within the meaning of this section when the person making, publishing or circulating any such statement, rumor or report, has reasonable grounds for believing that such statement, rumor or report is true and makes, publishes or circulates it 8[in good faith and] without any such intent as aforesaid.]
CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE
Para I
Punishment—Imprisonment for 3 years, or fine, or both—Non-cognizable—Non-bailable—Triable by any Magistrate—Non-compoundable.
Para II
Punishment—Imprisonment for 3 years, or fine, or both—Cognizable—Non-bailable—Triable by any Magistrate—Non-compoundable.
Para III
Punishment—Imprisonment for 5 years and fine—Cognizable—Non-bailable—Triable by any Magistrate—Non-compoundable.
The questions asked by the Tehelka to SIT
1. Why didn’t the SIT investigate the motive behind the positioning of health and housing ministers in the police control rooms? On 28 February 2002, as riots erupted, two Cabinet ministers — Ashok Bhatt and IK Jadeja — and their political staff were positioned in police control rooms.
2. Why is the SIT so hell-bent on discrediting two most crucial witnesses against Modi — Sanjiv Bhatt and RB Sreekumar?
3. Why was it first reported that the wireless communications had been destroyed and then later presented before the SIT by PC Pande, the Ahmedabad top cop at the time of the riots?
4. Why didn’t the SIT investigate the role of saffron brigade members who were appointed as public prosecutors to subvert the criminal justice system?
5. Why is the SIT reluctant to prosecute cops like MK Tandon and PB Gondia for their criminal negligence?
6. Why has the SIT failed to join the dots behind the shunting out of non-partisan cops and undue rewards granted to those officers whose dereliction engendered the massacres?
Read the complete Report
Updated on May 7, 2012
Final Report - Raju Ramachandran
Reality views by sm –
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Tags – Gujarat SIT Riot
2 comments:
The law should win and bring about goodwill.
@Kirtivasan
thanks.