Gujarat Riots : Mukul Rohatgi Defends SIT Clean Chit To Narendra Modi - Live Updates From Zakia Jafri's Case In Supreme Court Hearing

Rohatgi: Milord, kindly note that Pandeya was not handling a single case. He was representing the Govt before Nanavati Commission. Also Pandeya resigned as PP from Commission in 2008, much before SIT came into the scene. 

Rohatgi: See non filing of affidavit. Completely irrelevant material. I am giving you a flavour of the complaint and then I’ll show what our people (SIT) did

Rohatgi: See milord para 85 - nepotism of govt in transfer promotion etc. See at the bottom, an item on public prosecutors. Milord I head Mr. Sibal repeated say that though Arvind Pandeya was a PP he was arranging defence.

Rohatgi: Then about transfers - What will SIT do with transfers. It cannot ask the Govt why they were transferred.

Rohatgi: Kindly see Guj. Govt and Nanavati, talks about attitude of Govt in steam rolling Nanavati. As far as I am concerned what am I to do with this

Bench: This is all material of Nanavati Commission.

Rohatgi: See para 58 is general, See 59, PC Pandey’s comments on TV. Then she talks about Gulberg Society, where the problem happened in her area. Then against police, then against Govt. Para 64 is NHRC Report.

Then Milord, para 17, Shreekumar affidavit, then Rahul Sharma statement before Nanavati (Commission). This is not due material. Yet SIT examined each of these people.

Mr. Rohatgi mentions paragraphs from the complaint. 

Rohatgi: Then the Gulberg case. See para 14. Now about the manner and fashion in which bails were granted - now that judiciary is at the receiving end. para 15 onwards there is a reference to an affidavit like hearsay. Then about Rahul Sharma.

Rohatgi: Some reckless allegations. Kindly see. Now, kindly turn to pg. 54, para 10 is the meeting of 27.02.2002. Not touched by Petitioner, therefore not touched by me. Then, State sponsored events. As if the State sponsored the riots. Then cases are mentioned.

Rohatgi: Milord, pg 52 of my compilation. The complaint addresses PC Pandey.

Bench: Same copy of complaint before HC?

Rohatgi: I have to check.

Rohatgi: It is the doctored document. According to me, this case must end here.

Rohatgi: This is to show that now they say he was a great officer. In the complaint he is accused of heinous offences. It is not accidental omission.

Bench: The complaint copy is not filed as per you?