Closed chapter, says Banerjee

On a day the Gujarat High Court declared as 8220;illegal8221; the Centre-appointed committee to inquire into the February 27, 2002 fire on the 9166 Sabarmati Express near Godhra, retired Supreme Court judge Justice UC Banerjee who headed the panel set aside the matter as a 8220;closed chapter8221;.

On a day the Gujarat High Court declared as 8220;illegal8221; the Centre-appointed committee to inquire into the February 27, 2002 fire on the 9166 Sabarmati Express near Godhra, retired Supreme Court judge Justice UC Banerjee who headed the panel set aside the matter as a 8220;closed chapter8221;.

Speaking to The Indian Express over phone, Banerjee said: 8220;I was appointed by the Centre and asked to inquire into the cause of the fire on the Sabarmati Express and study the safety aspects of Indian Railways. I went to Gujarat, took evidence and submitted my report wherein I stated the cause of the fire and analysed the safety standards of the railways. Ever since I gave my report, it has been a closed chapter for me.8221;

He added without elaborating on the content of the report tabled in Parliament: 8220;I am not a politician. The Gujarat High Court has done something, it is upto them. I have got nothing more to say.8221;

Constituted on September 4, 2004 with an original tenure of three months, the Justice UC Banerjee Committee submitted its interim report on January 17, 2005. Eliminating the 8220;petrol theory8221; and 8220;miscreant activity theory8221;, the committee ruled out any possibility of 8220;electrical fire8221; to call the incident in S-6 coach of Sabarmati Express an 8220;accidental fire8221;. The committee submitted its final report on March 3 this year, reiterating the conclusions made in the interim report.

Here8217;s what the Committee had concluded in its inquiry:

8226; The fire in S6 originated in the coach itself without any external input

8226; No possibility of inflammable liquid having been used since there was first a smell of burning, followed by dense smoke and flames. This sequence is not possible if the fire is caused by inflammable liquid thrown on the floor of the coach or an inflammable object thrown from outside the coach

Story continues below this ad

8226; The 8220;inflammable liquid theory8221; also gets negated by the statement of a few passengers who suffered injuries on the upper portion of the body but not the lower

8226; On the basis of available evidence, it is unbelievable that Kar Sevaks to the extent of 90 of the total occupants armed with trishuls, would allow themselves to get burnt without a murmur by miscreant activity like a person entering S6 coach from outside and setting the coach on fire.

Blaming the Commission of Railway Safety and Railway Administration for failing to conduct a statutory inquiry into the accident, the Committee had also slammed the Railways for not making any efforts to preserve clues of the incident particularly the fact that coach S-7 was allowed to travel to Ahmedabad despite being damaged and being a 8220;crucial piece of evidence8221;.

The report also noted that the damaged portion of S-7 coach had been disposed off as scrap.