‘If SIT can’t conduct fair probe,bring in CBI’

In a written statement before a division bench of Justices Jayant Patel and Abhilasha Kumari,Sinha referred to the reported retractions of various witnesses and change of SIT chiefs. “…An impression is created in the mind of the applicant (Gopinath Pillai) that the investigation being conducted by the SIT till now has yielded no concrete result. On the contrary,the conduct of the two chairmen (Karnail Singh and Satyapal Singh) led to the deliberate delay in taking action.”

Sinha added: “…In case this court is of the opinion that the existing SIT is no longer in a position to conduct proper and fair investigation,this court may be pleased to hand over the investigation of the case to an independent agency like CBI.”

Sinha has also sought court’s permission to file an independent FIR in the case.

The petition has been kept for further hearing on August 5,before which the state government is likely to submit its reply.

The constitution of SIT has been controversy-ridden from the beginning. Initially,a single judge bench of the HC had formed a three-member SIT consisting of Gujarat-cadre IPS officers Pramod Kumar,Mohan Jha and J K Bhatt. Later,following a Supreme Court order,the SIT was dissolved by a division bench of the HC. The probe was handed over to the SC-appointed SIT — headed by former CBI director R K Raghvan — that is probing into the 2002 riots.

But,following reluctance shown by this SIT to probe the case,the HC re-constituted the Team. It was then headed by senior IPS officer from Delhi,Karnail Singh,with two Gujarat-cadre IPS officers,Satish Verma and Mohan Jha,as members. Though,soon differences among the SIT members emerged and Verma filed an elaborate affidavit before the HC alleging Jha of “obtaining retraction” of some witnesses in the case.

Subsequently,Singh was transferred to Meghalaya by the Centre and the Meghalaya government refused to spare him for the Ishrat probe.

He was replaced by Satyapal Singh from Maharashtra. But later,Satyapal sought to be relieved from the assignment citing various reasons and even the Maharashtra government wrote to the Centre that he could not be spared for the case.

Ramudu replaces Satyapal on Friday,the Central government informed the court that they are going to relieve Satyapal from the case.

In his petition,seeking removal of Satyapal as the SIT chief for his alleged inaction towards the retractions of the witnesses,Sinha has also demanded an inquiry into how witnesses were influenced to retract their statements.

The demand for removal of Satyapal,however,rendered redundant after the court replaced him with J V Ramudu,a 1981-batch IPS officer of Andhra Pradesh cadre.

Ramudu was one of the three IPS officers whose names were suggested by the Centre before the HC for selection as SIT chairman. The other two IPS officers were R C Arora from Madhya Pradesh and Rajesh Ranjan from Bihar.

While relieving Satyapal and appointing Ramudu,the HC made it clear to the Central government counsel and assistant solicitor general,Pankaj Champaneri,that the Centre must make it sure that the officer is willing to take the assignment for full time and that his parent state is also ready to release him for the same. Champaneri told the court that Ramudu’s name was put before the court after addressing the issues voiced by the court. After this,the court asked the Gujarat government to issue a notification regarding Ramudu’s appointment as the SIT chairman by July 19 while directing the Centre to make sure that Ramudu joins the investigation immediately thereafter.

Before passing this order,the court also took a serious view of retractions by various witnesses in the case. Justice Patel said it was a very issue and that they were not taking any steps in that regard because they want to first see the expert reports of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory and the AIIMS. Satyapal told the court that the reports might get delayed due to the recent Mumbai blasts.

The court also directed the state to provide protection to the witnesses if the SIT demands the same for any particular witnesses.