• About
  • Contcat Us
Saturday, March 25, 2023
Justice Bench
No Result
View All Result
  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Online Internship
  • Forums
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Online Internship
  • Forums
No Result
View All Result
justice bench
No Result
View All Result
Home News

PM Narendra Modi gets a clean chit in Gujarat Riots, Supreme Court rejects Zakia Jafri plea – know more

By Justuce Bench by By Justuce Bench
June 24, 2022
in News
Reading Time: 5 mins read
0
0
PM Narendra Modi gets a clean chit in Gujarat Riots

PM Narendra Modi gets a clean chit in Gujarat Riots

0
SHARES
16
VIEWS

The Supreme Court Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar dismissed the appeal made by Zakia Jafri, the wife of former Congress member of parliament Ehsan Jafri, on Friday in the case of Zakia Ahsan Jafri vs. State of Gujarat, noting that there was no evidence to support a larger criminal conspiracy on the part of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The appeal was made in relation to the clean bill given to Modi by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) in relation to the 2002 Gujarat riot

“The materials collected during the investigation do not give rise to strong or grave suspicion regarding hatching of larger criminal conspiracy at the highest level for causing mass violence across the State against the minority community and more so, indicating involvement of the named offenders and their meeting of minds at some level in that regard,” 

The Bench Stated

We are of the considered opinion that no fault can be found with the approach of the SIT in submitting final report dated 8.2.2012, which is backed by firm logic, expositing analytical mind and dealing with all aspects objectively for discarding the allegations regarding larger criminal conspiracy (at the highest level) for causing and precipitating mass violence across the State against the minority community during the relevant period. As aforementioned, the SIT has gone by the logic of falsity of the information or material and including the same remaining uncorroborated.”

The Court Upheld SIT report

On December 8, 2021, the Court had reserved judgement. The SIT members “came out with flying colours unscathed,” according to the Bench, who praised them for their “indefatigable work.” .The epithet “disgruntled” was also used to describe a number of Gujarati officials, notably former state DGP RB Sreekumar.

“At the end of the day, it appears to us that a coalesced effort of the disgruntled officials of the State of Gujarat along with others was to create sensation by making revelations which were false to their own knowledge. The falsity of their claims had been fully exposed by the SIT after a thorough investigation,” 

The Court Held

The Court emphasised that such officials needed to face charges for intentionally “keeping the pot boiling.”

READ ALSO

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that any form of penetration, even if it is minimal, during forced anal sex is considered an offense under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

Bengaluru court has banned the spread of defamatory content about IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri in a lawsuit against Roopa Moudgil and the media

“Intriguingly, the present proceedings have been 305 pursued for last 16 years including with the audacity to question the integrity of every functionary involved in the process of exposing the devious stratagem adopted (to borrow the submission of learned counsel for the SIT), to keep the pot boiling, obviously, for ulterior design. As a matter of fact, all those involved in such abuse of process, need to be in the dock and proceeded with in accordance with law,” 

The Court Held

During the Gujarat riots, Ehshan Jafri killed in the infamous Gulbarg Society Massacre.

Following the riots in Gujarat, Zakia Jafri complained to the state’s then-director general of police in 2006 and asked for the filing of a First Information Report (FIR) under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 302. The Gujarat Chief Minister at the time, Modi, was named in the complaint along with other politicians and officials.

The High Court dismissed Jafri’s petition after upholding the Magistrate’s decision to accept the SIT’s closure report in the case and the Magistrate’s decision to reject the report’s findings. The Gujarat High Court’s 2017 ruling was contested in the appeal before the Supreme Court. 

The apex court established a SIT in 2008 to produce a report on a number of riot-related trials, and later ordered the SIT to look into the complaint made by Jafri. The SIT report cleared Modi, and in 2011, the Supreme Court ordered the SIT to present its closure report to the relevant Magistrate. The petitioner was then given the opportunity to address any objections she might have to the findings. After receiving a copy of the closure report in 2013, the petitioner filed a petition objecting to it.

The Magistrate rejected Jafri’s petition and upheld the SIT’s closure report. Outraged, the petitioner went to the Gujarat High Court, which, in 2017, upheld the Magistrate’s judgement and dismissed the Jafri petition. Jafri and activist Teesta Setalvad then moved the Supreme Court to overturn the decision to accept the SIT’s clean bill of CHIT. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, the petitioner’s advocate, asserted at the hearing that the SIT’s probe was biassed and that it did not thoroughly review all of the material at hand. He claimed that the State encouraged the spread of hatred.

Sibal added that the SIT should be investigated into for drawing conclusions that were false. The SIT conducted a “collaborative exercise” rather than a “investigation,” and their investigation was riddled with omissions meant to shield the conspirators. Sibal claimed that there was evidence of a plot in the form of technological documents, including call data records of senior police officers and mobs that identified Muslim homes. He claimed that the Magistrate and High Court also decided to ignore the same, while the SIT completely disregarded everything and made no further inquiries into the matter. Sibal’s allegations that dead bodies were carried around were denied by senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi.

According to the State’s Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the State “done everything it could.” He had questioned Teesta Setalvad and Citizens for Justice’s trustworthiness, stating that they had embezzled funds intended for the riot victims’ welfare. He claimed that Setalvad was the driving force behind Zakia Jafri, exploiting her predicament to demand action.

Read Judgment

Zakia_Ahsan_Jafri_vs_State_of_Gujarat_and_orsDownload
Tags: 2002 Gujarat RiotsNarendra ModiSpecial Investigation Teamsupreme court of indiaZakia Jafri
ShareTweetSendShare

Related Posts

calcutta hc
News

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that any form of penetration, even if it is minimal, during forced anal sex is considered an offense under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

February 24, 2023
Bengaluru court has banned the spread of defamatory content about IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri in a lawsuit against Roopa Moudgil and the media
News

Bengaluru court has banned the spread of defamatory content about IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri in a lawsuit against Roopa Moudgil and the media

February 24, 2023
pocso act
News

SC – Touching a finger to a vagina does not constitute “insertion” for the purposes of attracting charges of penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act.

February 23, 2023
The Gujarat High Court has rejected a request by the wife of Sanjiv Bhatt, stating that police protection is not a guaranteed right.
News

The Gujarat High Court has rejected a request by the wife of Sanjiv Bhatt, stating that police protection is not a guaranteed right.

February 13, 2023
Justice Hima Kohli stated that Artificial Intelligence cannot replace the role of a judge or a lawyer, but it can handle cases such as traffic violations and cheque bounces.
News

Justice Hima Kohli stated that Artificial Intelligence cannot replace the role of a judge or a lawyer, but it can handle cases such as traffic violations and cheque bounces.

February 13, 2023
Central Government notifies appointment of Justice Sonia G Gokani as Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court
News

The appointment of Justice Sonia G. Gokani as the Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court has been announced by the central government.

February 13, 2023
google news
google news

POPULAR NEWS

Justices DY Chandrachud, AS Bopanna, and Bela M. Trivedi,

Execution of Document not to be considered based on Admission of Sign on Document Rules Supreme Court

May 12, 2022
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADVOCATE AND LAWYER

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ADVOCATE AND A LAWYER?

June 4, 2022
La Milano Pizzeria restrained  from representing previous association with La Pino'z - know more

La Milano Pizzeria restrained  from representing previous association with La Pino’z – know more

May 20, 2022
Why does Sequoia Capital terminate connections with Sandeep Kapoors Algo Legal? threats of ED searches, arm-twisting, and more

Why does Sequoia Capital terminate connections with Sandeep Kapoors Algo Legal? threats of ED searches, arm-twisting, and more

June 6, 2022
jug jugg jeeyo

Copyright infringement | Jugjugg Jeeyo movie stay refused by Ranchi court

June 25, 2022

Tags

advocate Algo Legal Allahabad HC Allahabad High Court Anil Deshmukh anticipatory bail Appointment of Judges bail Bombay high court calcutta high court central government cji Collegium Collegium Recommendations defamation delhi high court divorce Enforcement Directorate gauhati high court Gujarat High court Gyanvapi Mosque high court judges IPR Judicial Appointments justice bench karnataka high court kerala high court latest judgements law ministry legal news madras high court murder patna high court pil pocso act Rouse Avenue Court Sequoia Capital study material supreme court Supreme Court Collegium supreme court of india UAPA Union Law Ministry Uttar Pradesh varanasi court

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that any form of penetration, even if it is minimal, during forced anal sex is considered an offense under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

by By Justuce Bench
February 24, 2023
0
calcutta hc
News

The Calcutta High Court in India recently refused to quash a criminal case involving charges under Section 377 and allegations...

Read more

Bengaluru court has banned the spread of defamatory content about IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri in a lawsuit against Roopa Moudgil and the media

by By Justuce Bench
February 24, 2023
0
Bengaluru court has banned the spread of defamatory content about IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri in a lawsuit against Roopa Moudgil and the media
News

The Bengaluru court issued a temporary injunction against IPS officer D Roopa Moudgil and 59 media companies from broadcasting defamatory...

Read more

SC – Touching a finger to a vagina does not constitute “insertion” for the purposes of attracting charges of penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act.

by By Justuce Bench
February 23, 2023
0
pocso act
News

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal against a Kerala High Court decision which had ruled that poking one's...

Read more

The Gujarat High Court has rejected a request by the wife of Sanjiv Bhatt, stating that police protection is not a guaranteed right.

by By Justuce Bench
February 13, 2023
0
The Gujarat High Court has rejected a request by the wife of Sanjiv Bhatt, stating that police protection is not a guaranteed right.
News

The Gujarat High Court has rejected a petition filed by Shweta Bhatt, wife of former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt who...

Read more

About

Justice Bench is one of the fastest growing news legal portal in India, for latest Latest Legal News india, Supreme Court judgement updates, High Courts Judgments updates,Law Firms News in india, Law School News, Latest Legal News india visit us.

Follow us

google news
google news

Recent Posts

  • The Calcutta High Court has ruled that any form of penetration, even if it is minimal, during forced anal sex is considered an offense under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

Popular News

  • DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADVOCATE AND LAWYER

    WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ADVOCATE AND A LAWYER?

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0

© 2022 JusticeBench  |  Privacy Policy  | Terms of Use

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Online Internship
  • Forums

© 2022 JusticeBench  |  Privacy Policy  | Terms of Use

Welcome Back!

Sign In with Google
OR

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Sign Up with Google
OR

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In