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

Sibal: In other words complete cooperation of State Gov. SIT doesn't look at it. Now come to Failure of Intelligence. This is important. This was with prosecuting agency from the very beginning. Why was it not examined by SIT.

Sibal: Despite repeated reminders no response was received about the report. They could not longer wait for response and further recommendations were made. [Sibal points out that the Commission states that nothing in the response rebuts the presumption.]

Sibal: Milords, kindly come to the proceedings on 1st May. The sealed cover never saw the light of the day. No one in NHRC ever examined. Why? Then you jump to 31st of May. Heading Lack of response to confidential report. Till 31st May this report was not looked into. Why did SIT not ask for these documents. Why did they not examine it?

Sibal: Milords, kindly come to the proceedings on 1st May. The sealed cover never saw the light of the day. No one in NHRC ever examined. Why? Then you jump to 31st of May. Heading Lack of response to confidential report. Till 31st May this report was not looked into. Why did SIT

Sibal: Reads out the Recommendations of NHRC including entrusting of some critical cases to CBI; special courts should try this cases on a day to day cases, judges should be handpicked and special prosecutor appointed; Special cells.

Sibal: [He emphasised that the Commission expressed disappointment] No response from Govt of Guj. That was the problem. The report asked for on 1st March was received only in 20th March.

Sibal: They started enquiring this suo moto as I have shown from the 1st document. [He emphasised that the Commission stated that burden to rebut presumption was on the Govt.]

Sibal: Pg 8 of Vol. X - Proceeding of NHRC. As your Lordship knows that it functions under the Human Rights Act. Kindly come to page 10. See what it says as pg 10. This is March 1, 2002. Now come to pg. 11. So this notice [issued by NHRC] is sent in 2002.

Sibal: [He reads out observations of NHRC] It was the concern of the commission to see an end to the violence and restoration of normalcy. Milords mark the fact that the SIT never took any statements of any members of the commission.There were preliminary sealed cover reports.

Bench: Maybe you have missed it in the record of the cases.

Bench: You can pitch to this extent that these were to be done by SIT, but it was not done. Error of judgment will be explained by SIT then only you can.

Sibal: The accused were not prosecuted by the SIT. So far there is nothing on record that offers any explanation. There is nothing in the records of the case.

Sibal: SIT had knowledge of Tehelka tapes. They knew about the judgment of Guj HC that authenticated the tapes. That is a question that anyone would ask. Why was the defence accepted by the SIT. what does it show - was SIT collaborating and saving some people. Why ? I don't know.