SC shunts out two SIT cops,says will hear Gujarat govt

The Supreme Court on Tuesday almost stayed criminal trials in nine post-Godhra riot cases but did a re-think after the Gujarat government insisted that the court should first hear what the state has to say.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday almost stayed criminal trials in nine post-Godhra riot cases but did a re-think after the Gujarat government insisted that the court should first hear what the state has to say.

The court,however,asked Special Investigation Team chief R K Raghavan to direct two of his officers,Geetha Johri and Shivanand Jha,not to participate in the probe due to certain adverse remarks against their conduct as

SIT members.

This prompted Jha,who was present in the court room,to say that he too should be heard before being damned.

Seven years ago,the Supreme Court had issued a stay order on the same nine cases,but later vacated the order in May 2009 and directed day-to-day hearing by fast track courts in Gujarat. It had also turned down a plea by activists for shifting the trial outside the state.

The state government said a second stay order in the trials would make it a laughing stock. So the court decided on Tuesday to hear the state government and other parties concerned in a detailed manner on April 19 before coming to a decision.

During a hearing spread over two hours,the special three-judge bench of Justices D K Jain,P Sathasivam and Aftab Alam virtually agreed to stay the trial in nine riot cases and look into allegations against the court-appointed SIT.

The nine cases monitored by the SIT refer to incidents of riot and murder at Godhra,Odh two separate trials,Sardarpura,Deepda Darwaza,the killing of a British national,Naroda Patiya,Naroda Gaon and the Gulberg Society massacre.

Story continues below this ad

Stressing that a stay on the nine trials would affect riot victims who have been waiting for justice since 2002,senior advocate Mukul Rohtagi,appearing for Gujarat government,asked the court: Who would you ultimately trust?8230; the Gujarat Police,the judges,the SIT? The trial was stayed for five years,re-opened

only a year back,now again you go for a stay because somebody discredits Officer A or Officer B. What will happen to the trial?

He said that 1,061 witnesses have testified,while about 100 turned hostile and over 2,000 people are yet to depose in the cases. A stay at this point would undo the work done so far,he said.

We did not invite the SIT. Your Lordships thrust it on us. Now

you want to stop them? he asked the court.

Story continues below this ad

The day had begun with the bench deliberating that a re-constitution of the SIT as demanded by activists and victims could mean a stay on the trials.

We shall have to stay the trial. In this scenario,do we order a fresh inquiry? If trial is stayed it will involve a lot of time. It will mean re-constitution of the SIT,look into what was done and what is to be done8230; it may also mean a new chargesheet, the bench observed.

Amicus curiae Harish Salve agreed that the entire case had reached the crossroads but any step taken in future should be above suspicion. He advised the court re-consider some of the cases afresh.

Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium pitched in with Salve when he said that he was perturbed going through the work of the SIT and shared the discomfiture of the amicus about the SITs method of functioning.

Story continues below this ad

The way out would be the appointment of another agency or at least replace the members of the SIT. The trials have to be stayed till then,otherwise they the trials will be rendered meaningless, he said.

But a visible shift in the courts perception of the issue changed after Rohtagi reminded the court that the SIT was the Supreme Courts own choice for an independent probe.

This is your SIT,you have given them credit before,now you want to impose a stay on them just because someone says I discredit this and that. They may not be an ideal choice,but I am yet to find someone ideal myself, Rohtagi said.

I Gujarat government am sitting here blindfolded. No document has been given to us. No order,including a stay,should be passed until the state gets all the papers. It is the state which is to prosecute in the cases,and here I am sitting like a bystander. I have the right to be heard, he said.

Story continues below this ad

Senior advocate Ram Jethmalani,appearing for former MLA Kalu Maliwad who is an accused in the Gulberg Society case,seconded Rohtagi: This stay will be naturally prejudicial on the state and the accused persons if we are not given a right to be heard. There are some here who want all 63 of us to be hanged,but we should be first given a chance to be heard before we are hanged, he said.

The bench directed Salve to hand over copies of various comments made by the SIT and other documents to the Gujarat government for perusal.