Gujarat Riots- Zakia Jafri's Plea Against Clean Chit To Narendra Modi- LIVE UPDATES From Supreme Court

Live Law News Network

8 Dec 2021 10:44 AM IST

  • Gujarat Riots- Zakia Jafris 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.

    Live Updates

    • 8 Dec 2021 12:33 PM IST

      Sibal: Vol III of my compilation. SIT argued that no crowd had gathered.

      SIT document show crowds had gathered.

    • 8 Dec 2021 12:26 PM IST

      Sibal: The same logic applies to post-mortem in railway yards. Why was a crowd allowed and the post -mortem was conducted before the crowd. Why were photographs being taken. These questions were never asked by SIT.

    • 8 Dec 2021 12:22 PM IST

      Sibal: Why was it handed over to VHP personnel had to be investigated. They (VHP) even got private trucks and they were escorted. Bodies handed over to VHP people, they were escorted by the police escort. Investigation was to be why they were handed over the bodies.

    • 8 Dec 2021 12:22 PM IST

      Sibal: The controversy is that he (Mamtaldar) said that he was given oral instructions by Jayanti Ravi, she said that she gave no such instructions. They (SIT) accept Jayanti and reject Mamlatdar. Both 161 statements.

    • 8 Dec 2021 12:16 PM IST

      Bench: This seems to be some Pandey.

      Sibal: I am told it is Patel. Maybe this will be clear from the Mamlatdar’s affidavit at 245. 

    • 8 Dec 2021 12:15 PM IST

      Sibal: On Tehelka, I am done, now I come to others. SIT said that the bodies were not handed over to VHP. Nothing on record to show. The evidence is to the contrary. Kindly come to pg. 249. This is handing over of dead bodies. This is Hasmukh Patel.

    • 8 Dec 2021 12:15 PM IST

      Sibal: The Commissioner was to be asked why did you not seize the phones when violence was going on. Not a single victim statement recorded by the SIT.

    • 8 Dec 2021 12:09 PM IST

      Sibal: Now Milord, your lordship knows that there were PCR messages that there was going to be violence. The gathering at Solah Civil hospital was not family members. The SIT has not looked into these.

    • 8 Dec 2021 12:04 PM IST

      Sibal: No your lordship. Further investigation was ordered. Supplementary chargesheets were filed. With respect.

      Bench: You keep saying that there was no investigation. SIT said that evidence was on record. We will see these.

    • 8 Dec 2021 12:01 PM IST

      Sibal: As far as everything was done by State Govt. come to 49. Is it not enough that this court stayed the trial because the State was not doing anything.

      Bench: Weren’t the stayed trials those where investigation was complete?

    Next Story