[LIVE UPDATES] Gujarat Riots Case In SC : 'SIT Did No Investigation' , Sibal Argues Zakia Jafri's Plea Against Clean Chit To Narendra Modi

Sibal : This in 2002 incident, SIT is saying these are the problems(people not coming forward to give evidence). This is the SIT telling the SC that when we looking at the complaint no one is cooperating in 2009.

Sibal - This culminates into the Closure Report.

Sibal : They(SIT) had to send it(the report) to some Magistrate, probably because she was the resident there it was sent to the concerned Magistrate dealing with the Gulberg case.

Sibal : Let’s move onto the facts. In Vol 11 in one of such reports was there. This report will show that the report was not limited to Gulberga. Pg 142 of my SLP. Kindly see 144 - reconstitution of SIT, Second para.

Bench - This is not your main grievance. Let’s come to that. SIT not investigating and Magistrate not taking note of the same.

Sibal - Kindly come to 881 in our matter. This is the SLP against the HC order. Historically for all cases, when it came to my complaint, take a call,

Bench - Whether any report was given with respect to order of 27th April .

Sibal - Yes, in Vol 11.

Rohatgi - When the report which was given, SC said go to Magistrate concerned and same report was given to Magistrate.

Sibal - When this was filed before Magitrate, this was apart from that. The Gulberga matter was going at Sessions Court.

Sibal - It is related to a larger conspiracy.

Bench - Basic question is where was it filed? It was in CR 67. This is our understanding of the 2011 judgment of this Court.

Sibal - Kidly come to pg 79 of Vol 4. Pg 78. SIT was not only for Gulberga.

Sibal - SIT was constituted for all the matters, not for Gulberga society crime alone.

Rohatgi - The matter had to go back to Court that took cognisance in CR 67 of 2002.

Sibal - What Magistrate had to do is either accept the closure report or not. If it was only Gulberga then what was SIT doing investigating everything.

Bench - The opening part of the report mentions CR 67 of 2002.

Bench to Rohatgi : Kindly clarify. This report is in which crime, in which proceeding.

Rohatgi - It is like this there were 9 major cases, 9 FIRs, Gulberg is the case where the husband was killed. Then came SIT 2008-09. They took up all major cases and filed chargesheets in each of those cases. 4455 supplementary chargesheet were filed. Her complaint was not converted into FIR, she went to HC. HC asked to file complaint. She came to SC against the order of HC. There was a pending matter of NHRC. Her SLP was kind of clubbed together. Also an order was passed in which SC said all aspects to be investigated by SIT. After consideration, SIT came to conclusion that apart from the chargesheet filed there was not material in the matter of 2006 to take it forward. In that sense it was a closure.

Bench - That report is filed in CR 67 of 2002. Is it correct to say that?

Rohatgi - Yes, your Lordship is correct. There was no direction to file FIR.

Bench - This judgment of 2011 takes note of complaint. What this court directed is to the SIT to look into the matter in the proceeding of CR 67 of 2002.

Sibal - Look into the allegation and file report under Magistrate. No matter was pending before Magistrate

Bench - Have you referred to the fresh proceeding in your SLP.

Sibal - Kindly See Vol 14. Let be clear on the facts. It deals with every allegation.

Bench - Who is appearing for SIT?

Senior Adv Mukul Rohatgi says he is appearing for the SIT

Bench - Reading 10 and 11 there was no direction of this Court to register your complaint as a separate case. Protest Petition can be filed only after the closure report is filed.

Sibal - Let me assume that your Lordship is correct then SIT has given closure for every matter, deals with every allegation. My Lords maybe we are wrong in interpreting the judgment. This is not how SIT or amicus viewed it.

Sibal - The complaint that came up before court had nothing to do with the charge sheet

Bench - In that pending case, a complaint had to be filed. Is it not?

Sibal - No, Your Lordship Para 11 of this judgment will clarify. What happened was Court said everything that happened on 08.06.2006 complaint had to be considered.

Bench: Was any fresh complaint registered, This was presented in the existing proceeding.

Sibal - The Gulberga Trial was going before the sessions court. This was sent to the magistrate.

Bench- We are not clear on that fact. Show us the independent proceeding based on your complaint.

Sibal - Kindly see NHRC v. State of Gujarat pg 74 of Vol 4, come to page 79

Bench - It is not a new case registered. It was not ordered to be registered. The final report was to be submitted there.

Bench - Protest petition is in which complaint. It is not present independently.

Sibal - I am not disputing that my complaint was not registered.