Gujarat Riots- Zakia Jafri's Plea Against Clean Chit To Narendra Modi- LIVE UPDATES From Supreme Court
Supreme Court to continue hearing today the petition filed by Zakia Jafri challenging the SIT's clean chit to the then Gujarat CM Narendra Modi & other high functionaries in the #GujaratRiots of 2002.A Bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheswari and CT Ravikumar will hear the matter today.Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal will continue his arguments today on behalf of Zakia...
Supreme Court to continue hearing today the petition filed by Zakia Jafri challenging the SIT's clean chit to the then Gujarat CM Narendra Modi & other high functionaries in the #GujaratRiots of 2002.
A Bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheswari and CT Ravikumar will hear the matter today.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal will continue his arguments today on behalf of Zakia Jafri.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard the closing arguments of the Solicitor General, Mr. Tushar Mehta. At the outset, the Solicitor General was critical of the motivations of Teesta Setalvad (Petitioner No. 2) in the present proceedings, which he argued was to simply malign the State of Gujarat. Apart from that, Mr. Solicitor General, vehemently argued that the State had taken all measures that it possibly could, after the Sabarmati Express was torched and during the ensuing riots. To substantiate his claim, he relied on the Report of the Commission of Enquiries set up by the State with respect to the 2002 riots. In his rebuttal, Mr. Kapil Sibal fervently reiterated his submissions on the lack of investigation by SIT.
Stay On This Page For Live Updates From The Hearing.
Sibal: So, Milords, now he (Rayiz) is appearing in all cases against us. I just wanted to show his conduct. He is their stock witness in all cases.
Rohatgi: I would want to respond to the note (Mr. Sibal’s note).
Bench: We will continue tomorrow, then.
Sibal: I wanted to point out about Rayiz Khan. Kindly come to the table in 109. This Rayiz Khan was in our employment, we got protection for Rayiz Khan from this Court. Then his services were terminated.
Sibal: Tutoring witness is not the same as guiding a witness. The injured witnesses were in such a state of mind that they needed (guidance).
Bench: SIT did not comment on the Petitioner.
Sibal: He did briefly comment and then allowed the State to do that.
Sibal: She (Teesta) is not seeking any personal relief. She was doing it openly, not secretly.
Sibal: If the victims feel that the State has not been fair to them what is wrong with that. This means every victim who act against the state would be characterised in this fashion. What is the sinister agenda? I was working with NHRC.
Sibal: Is it illegal to help a widow, who has no recourse to justice? In fact S. 39 of the CrPC makes it a duty. S 302,303,304. It is duty to give these information to Court under S. 39.
Bench: We made it clear that all those facts [in Guj HC judgment] were not relevant in this case.
Mr. Sibal reads from his note that the challenge to the locus of petitioner no. 2 is based on unsubstantiated allegations in a judgment of Guj HC.
Bench: We made it clear when he was arguing, that we will not give opinion on other proceedings. We will not record finding on those proceedings.