We are deviating from real issues: SC

the real issues… deviating to other directions,” a three-judge special bench led by Justice DK Jain observed.

The Bench,also comprising justices P Sathasivam and Aftab Alam,aired its anxiety after the hearings over the last two months saw the

court witness allegations and counter allegations between the key people in the exercise,including activists and the Gujarat government on the re-constitution of the SC-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT).

On April 6,the court directed SIT chief R K Raghavan to drop IPS officers Geetha Johri and Shivanand Jha from the team after activists questioned their official conduct. But Raghavan has responded to this order by asking the court to re-consider its direction. An exasperated court today retorted to Raghavan’s request,saying: “We did not pass the order on the request of SIT chief,have we? What is the relevance of raising the issue of SIT chairman seeking retaining of its two members?”

The SC highlighted another instance of behind-the-scenes occurrence of how Special Public Prosecutor in the Gulberg Society massacre case,RK Shah,has openly criticised the trial judge for his “taunts”,and the SIT for its functioning. Shah and his assistant Nayana Bhatt had tendered their resignations to SIT early this March. It was Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium who first brought the contents of Shah’s letter (dated February 26,2010) to the court’s notice in a hearing on April 6. The court had then asked the SG point-blank how he came into possession of a letter written by Shah to the SIT chief.

The court today also made it clear that it was not amused by Shah’s actions. “The prosecutor commenting on the conduct of a judge selected by us,sending e-mails to somebody… we are very surprised at this. I have to air my views here and say that this practice is very bad. Sorry,he has no discretion as to whom he can work with. We decide whom he should work with. Prosecutors cannot come out of a court hearing and give statements to show off that he is doing a good job. The only thing he can do is quit,” Justice Jain said. At this point,state government counsel Mukul Rohatgi raised questions why a prosecutor from Gujarat should get in touch with the Centre.

Amicus curiae Harish Salve suggested that “Centre-State politics should be kept out”. Salve said he was “treading on a thin line” because any adverse comments about the SIT or the court proceedings made in the SC would be used as a defence strategy by the accused — in the trials. He agreed to meet Raghavan on the point of re-constitution of the SIT,and report back to the court by May 6. The court granted SIT time till May 15 to file its report on Zakia Jafri’s allegations in the Gulberg massacre case.

The hearing ended with a face-off between senior advocate Ram Jethmalani — representing an accused in the Gulberg case — and advocate Kamini Jaiswal,who is appearing for the activists.

When Jethmalani,a former Union law minister,said he had chosen to fight the Lok Sabha elections against his ‘own Prime Minister AB Vajpayee” on the sole issue that the riot cases be transferred outside Gujarat,Jaiswal said: “this place is not Parliament where you can change the stand whenever you like. There is some ethics,you once appeared for the NGO Centre for Justice and Peace”.

An annoyed Jethamalani shot back saying “you are too small a person to talk like this”. Justice Jain attempted to cool matters saying “youngsters are watching this. Seniors like you cannot argue like this”.