The formation of the SIT is a chance for the state government to prove that it has mended its ways and the era of Raj-dharma and responsible conduct has prevailed, writes DR WAQUAR ANWAR
Gujarat riots cases have life. Hopes for justice are not yet dead. The recent ruling of the Supreme Court, although short of the expectations of the civil society, has enlivened the major cases that were dumped by the alleged biased nexus between politicians and police administration of Gujarat. Kudos to the civil society of Gujarat for keeping the cases alive and thanks to the support received from agencies like National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).
The Supreme Court’s decision to reinvestigate these cases has come on the petitions of NHRC and Citizens for Justice and Peace for investigation by Central Bureau of Investigations (CBI) and transfer of these cases outside Gujarat. The apex court has not agreed to the idea of engaging the CBI and instead directed the Gujarat government to set up a special investigation team (SIT) for a further probe into 14 Godhra and post-Godhra communal riots cases. The SIT would comprise three senior IPS officers from Gujarat – Ms Geeta Johri, Mr Sivananad Jha and Mr Ashish Bhatia – and two others: former CBI director R.K. Raghavan, now retired, and Uttar Pradesh cadre IPS officer C.V. Satpathy. The five-member SIT is to be headed by R.K. Raghavan. The Bench asked the SIT to complete the probe and submit its report to the court in three months. These 14 riot cases relate to rape, murder and arson at various places including those at Godhra town, Gulbarg Society and Naroda Gaon, Naroda Patiya in Ahmedabad, Best Bakery in Vadodara, Ode and Sardarpur massacres, Baranpura, Machipith, Tarsali, Raghovpura and Pandarwada. The SIT need not confine itself to complaints and it could conduct any enquiry necessary for the investigation. The Bench directed that the matter be listed for the last week of August for further directions.
Success in getting the order passed for reopening the cases is an achievement of the NHRC, activists and NGOs and almost all of them have welcomed this development. The Congress Party too welcomed the order of the Supreme Court to constitute the five-member team saying that it was a vindication of its stand that the investigation by the state government was neither impartial nor effective. “We welcome the fresh inquiry into some of the important and extremely agonising riots that had taken place in the aftermath of Godhra,” AICC Spokesperson Jayanthi Natarajan said, adding, “the Congress Party has always stated that the investigations which were conducted by the state government were biased and mostly conducted with a view to covering up the acts of the main accused.”
Two things have dampened the spirits of the civil society. One is the failure in convincing the apex court in forwarding the cases to the CBI. The other pinch of salt is inclusion in the SIT of officers of Gujarat cadre as proposed by the state government.
Two earlier cases that were entrusted to the CBI and transferred outside the state of Gujarat have resulted in getting convictions of the culprits. Dr. Shakeel Ahmed, the Administrator of Cell for Legal Help and Guidance (CLHG) under Islamic Relief Committee of Gujarat (IRCG), while talking with the Radiance Viewsweekly after the judgment in Bilkis Bano case said, “This cent per cent success in convictions in these two cases gives credence to the appeal of the civil society that all transfer cases pending in the Supreme Court should likewise be shifted outside the state of Gujarat along with reinvestigations by the CBI so that justice may prevail there also.” He had further stressed, “I would like to record my assessment that mere transfer of cases outside Gujarat is not sufficient. The reinvestigation by the CBI is the necessary ingredient for the exercise to be purposeful.”
Human rights activists in Gujarat are not happy with the names of the SIT members from Gujarat as these were proposed by the Modi government. All these three Gujarat IPS officers are considered close to the Modi government. Ms Geeta Johri came to limelight for her probe into fake encounters. However, it is felt that she has been instrumental in hushing up the names of political bosses from the cases. Political elements from the encounters have been washed out and the blames for the tragedies now lie entirely on the overambitious and more-loyal-than-Caesar-type officers. At least it may be said that the names proposed by the state government and accepted by the apex court may not be successful in gaining confidence of the victims. The members of the SIT should have the persons who cannot be pressurised by anybody and whose performance be blemish free. It is reported that Anti Corruption Bureau of the state government is investigating a case against Anil Johri, husband of Ms. Geeta Johri. Further, reportedly, his name figures in a murder case under investigation by the CID Crime Branch.
Another member of the SIT Sivananad Jha was, reportedly, in-charge Ahmedabad West during the riots where properties of Muslims in the posh areas were looted and burnt. Further, 12 persons were reportedly killed in police firing and 850 houses of the Muslims were burnt in Juhapura falling under that area. How can the name of a member of the SIT with this poor performance gain confidence of the victims? Human rights activists would have preferred IPS officers like Rajnish Rai, Rahul Sharma, Satish Verma or Atul Karwal to be part of the SIT.
The government of Gujarat has willingly accepted the formation of SIT without much argument in the Supreme Court. Apparently it is because the state government succeeded in avoiding the ‘risk’ of CBI enquiry. The cases came to the Supreme Court only because of the high handed behaviour of the state government. It may be recalled that out of 4252 riots related cases registered in Gujarat 2140 cases were summarily disposed and closed by the state police for lack of evidence. These cases were later reopened on the orders of the Supreme Court. In the words of Dr. Shakeel, “It is an irony that the agency, i.e. the police that had closed the cases is the same that is reinvestigating these reopened cases.” Hence presence of IPS officers of the choice of Modi Administration in the SIT is a cause of concern for the human rights activists.
A mere reading of the directions of the Supreme Court to set up the SIT would suggest that the government of Gujarat is behaving responsibly. The Bench said the counsel for Gujarat had suggested that the State had no objection to further investigation so that people’s faith in its transparent action would be strengthened. The counsel had said the State was not shielding any guilty persons and it wanted them punished. The Bench said, “This seems to be a fair approach on the part of the State.” But the real conduct of the state political administration relating to the riots cases speaks otherwise. In the backdrop of the attitude and track record of the state government this willingness to cooperate becomes meaningful. This is perhaps to ensure that an outside agency like the CBI, on which the state government has no control, is kept at bay.
Investigation by the SIT is not the end of the cases. SIT report may become beginning of other developments. The seriousness with which the apex court has pursued the Gujarat post-Godhra riots cases and the strictures against the state administration passed in the past indicate that the court this time is giving the state an opportunity to correct its ways and discharge its Constitutional duties properly.
The post-Godhra riots griped nearly 65 per cent of Gujarat where 16 districts out of total 25 were under its influence. Over 1.5 lakh people were displaced during the riots and more than 2000 persons, mostly, if not all of them, Muslims were killed. The train burning incident at Godhra happened on February 27, 2002 and communal riots started from February 28 and continued till June.
Despite all things said the formation of the SIT is a welcome move and it is one step ahead, although not totally in the direction sought for. It is hoped that justice will finally prevail at an early date. The delay already done is not good considering the criminal nature of the cases involved. The Supreme Court was approached in the year 2003 with the request to involve the CBI in the investigations and transfer the cases outside the state. Two cases that were transferred with the CBI enquiry have brought the culprits to book. The 2140 cases that were reopened on the orders of the Supreme Court are moving slowly and without not-much things to write home about. For example, the Supreme Court had directed that the progress of the cases should be reported regularly on a website. The website in question is not updated regularly.
This is a chance for the state government to prove that it has mended its ways and the era of Raj-dharma and responsible conduct has prevailed.