Contrary to the Government’s claim in its ATR that any further action against Jagdish Tytler ‘‘will not be justified,’’ the ‘‘credible evidence’’ found by the Nanavati Commission against him can well form the basis for re-opening a 1984 case related to the attack on a north Delhi Gurdwara and murder of two Sikhs. The police have the option of filing a supplementary chargesheet against Tytler under FIR No 316/84 of Bara Hindu Rao Police Station which specifically deals with the burning of Gurdwara Pul Bangash and killing of Thakur Singh and Badal Singh there. This option exists despite the fact that in 1992 a sessions judge, J B Goel, acquitted 31 other accused persons named in the chargesheet already filed by the police under FIR No 316 As evident from his report, ex-Supreme Court judge Justice G T Nanavati had very much taken into account the 1992 acquittals before recommending in 2005 that Tytler’s alleged complicity in the Gurdwara Pul Bangash episode be looked into. The filing of a supplementary chargesheet against Tytler in that case does not violate the constitutional bar on ‘‘double jeopardy’’ as he was not among the accused who had already been tried and acquitted. The Nanavati Commission recommended action against Tytler on the basis of evidence given by Surinder Singh, who was the head priest of Gurdwara Pul Bangash when it was attacked on November 1, 1984. Another major finding against Tytler relates to the affidavit of Jasbir Singh who alleged before the Commission that he had seen the then Congress MP of Sadar constituency berating his followers for not killing enough Sikhs in that constituency as compared to others. Since the Commission recommended further action on this finding as well, the Government can book a case of criminal conspiracy against Tytler for the killing of Sikhs in his Sadar constituency during the 1984 carnage. (Incidentally, the death toll throughout Sadar was over 150.) The Commission set much store by the fact that despite having an opportunity, Tytler chose not to cross-examine either of the riot victims who deposed against him. In his defence today before the media, Tytler took refuge in the fact that the CBI had given him a clean chit in the context of the 1984 riots after they had conducted an investigation under the orders of the Delhi High Court. Tytler however failed to mention that the CBI case was of a different police station and had nothing to do with the two cases recommended by the Nanavati Commission.
