With the kind of evidence that I saw as Chief Justice of India, I would never have exonerated the government of its responsibility during the 2002 riots, if I was responsible for the Commission.As CJI, I heard a large number of cases from the riot-stricken of Gujarat in 2002. I don’t see a case for absolving the state government or of saying that all responsibilities were fulfilled. There are three primary responsibilities of the state. The first, is the protection of lives of people, all people, and especially the weaker sections, who may not have the necessary voice and strength to look after themselves. Second comes the duty to prosecute those who violate the law. The third is the duty to provide relief to victims of violence. It is important for governments to educate people, build roads etc. but all of that is predicated on their being able to first protect lives.On the three crucial aspects, the police and the state in Gujarat during the riots was an utter failure. The state, after being unable to protect lives also carried out shoddy investigations. I got the sense that investigations were done to help the accused, rather than the victims.On February 27, 2002, the terrible incident of the train at Godhra took place. On the 28th, the VHP gave a call against the incident, and on March 1, the riots began. When it was brought to my notice that trial in hundreds of cases was about to begin in Gujarat on this, I stayed the trial. The Best Bakery case in Baroda is one such case. Tell me, at night, between 8.30 to 10 pm, the Bakery was set on fire, with about 20-22 people inside it. Hundreds, perhaps thousands gathered outside. The police station was very close, about 2-3 kms away. I was told in Court that the PCR stood there, and did nothing..Forget about fire extinguishers, the fire continued to rage all night, till it went out, by itself, at 11.30 am or so the next morning (March 2). Moreover, there were 16 people burnt alive, no effort made to rescue them or take them out, when the police station was so close. Is this the state fulfilling its duty to protect lives? Zahira Sheikh was able to lodge the FIR only by 3.30 pm the next day. As far as prosecuting wrongdoers, under the criminal penal code, it is the duty of the police to investigate, collect all evidence and then present it before the Court to prosecute offenders. I think the three roles should not be vested in one agency, but as they are, how they perform on that yardstick will be what we will use to judge them.Then, not just in the Zahira Sheikh matter, but in most of the hundreds of cases, after the first deposition, several eyewitnesses turned hostile! The job of the prosecution in this case is to argue and cross-examine the hostile witnesses, to ensure that fear or greed are not responsible for making them change their minds. Here, as witnesses turned hostile, the prosecution did not even bother to cross-examine. Is this fulfillment of obligations of the state? I actually had to appoint an amicus (Harish Salve) and send out three or four lawyers to report to me on what the status was.Therefore, the Supreme Court shifted two cases out of the state, as I felt justice could not be done there. The Supreme Court transferred Best Bakery and Bilkees Bano to Maharashtra. When I found no protection for victims, by my judicial order, I directed the state government to provide protection to the victims, relations and their witness, and in case of violations, report back to the Supreme Court.If I was on this Commission, I would say that the police had failed to protect the right of people to their life, as no effort was made to stop rioters. What else should a Commission conclude?The writer was the Chief Justice of India in 2002, when state-wide communal violence erupted there.
