[Gujarat Riots]'Evidence Not Collected, If Collected Not Analysed, Leads To The Inference That SIT Was Hiding Something': Kapil Sibal To Supreme Court In Zakia Jafri Matter

While making submissions, before a Bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing on behalf of Zakia accentuated that the crucial aspects of the tragic incident was not investigated by the SIT, appointed by the Supreme Court. He emphasised that the evidence required to establish the elements of a larger conspiracy had been overlooked by the investigating agency. Evidence was not collected and those collected were not analysed, which Mr. Sibal noted would lead to the inference that something was hidden or protected by SIT.

Arms gathering and bombs manufacturing across Gujarat - not investigated

Recounting his previous submissions on the issue of arms gathering and bombs manufacturing across the State of Gujarat during the Gujarat riots of 2002, Mr. Sibal referred to the testimony of Dhawal Patel [in Tehelka tapes], who had elaborately spoken about the accumulation of dynamite. On the same issue, Mr. Sibal drew the attention of the Court to the statements given by Haresh Patel who mentioned one Rohit Zaveri, helping him in arm smuggling. Considering that Mr. Sibal had already read out the statements of Dhawal Patel and Haresh Bhat on previous occasions, he apprised the Court on the statement of Rohit Zaveri -

"Rohit Zaveri, I have not read. Rohit Zaveri Rohit Zaveri, who is a businessman, was a VHP Treasurer…"

The Bench enquired, "Dhawal Patel is resident of which district?"

Mr. Sibal replied, "Savarkanta."

Again Bench enquired, "Haresh Bhat?"

Mr. Sibal replied, "Godhra."

Then, the Bench asked about Anil Patel. Mr. Sibal informed the Court that he was from Savarkanta and Babu Bajrangi was from Ahmedabad.

Regarding the interviews of the four accused, the Court asked, "Who has interviewed all these 4 persons?"

Mr. Sibal informed that all the four interviews were conducted by Ashish Khetan.

"Ashish Khetan is from Gujarat?", enquired the Bench.

Mr Sibal clarified that Ashish Khetan was a journalist of Tehelka who had conducted the sting operation.

Thereafter, he brought the Court's attention back to the testimony of Anil Patel which corroborated that of Haresh Bhat about the bombs being manufactured during the riots.

"He corroborates what Haresh Bhat says. He says bombs were made in Haresh Bhai's own factory. This is a corroboration of what Haresh says. Even in separate interviews there is corroboration."

Thinking that Mr. Sibal was referring to Rohit Zaveri, the Bench asked, "His statement starts from where?"

Mr. Sibal spelled out, "I am reading Anil Patel. Starts at pg 90."

Addressing the issue of collaboration of the accused with the higher state functionaries and the the lack of investigation in that regard, he pointed out -

"See, the police are collaborating with them. I am not saying this is proof, but it is a matter of serious investigation."

Mr. Sibal further elucidated that when Anil was asked by Khetan about the conduct of the policemen during the riots, he had informed "Police here supported us, said do something to loot them, finish them...He (some policeman's father) works in our programme also."

Secret meeting on the night of 27th February - not investigated

The second issue that was dealt with during the hearing was the secret meeting of the political organisations on the night of 27.02.2002, the day before the dead bodies in the Godhra tragedy reached Ahmedabad. Mr. Sibal submitted -

"Milords going back to the table now. Over the page is the second heading - Secret meeting on the night of 27.02.2002. Kindly see pg. 296 top, Milords."

The Bench asked Mr. Sibal, "What is this document?"

Responding that the same was the statement of Dheemant Bhat recorded by Khetan, Mr. Sibal continued -

"This is Dheemant Bhat. He is an RSS and BJP member. This statement is recorded by Ashish Khetan. It says immediately the same day there were two meetings."

The Bench observed that there was some confusion since the statement that was being read out was that of Dhawal Patel. Resolving the issue, Mr. Sibal pointed out, "pg 295 is Dheemant Bhat."

Agreeing to the same, the Bench stated, "You are right. In this chart Dheemant Bhat is not mentioned. This is second heading. Yes. Right."

Continuing with his submissions, Mr. Sibal added -

"Kindly see at pg 296[Dheemant's Testimony]There were two meeting what actions had to take, if we have guts we should give it back immediately. So we would start tonight. [Dheemant's testimony] Was this organised by local leaders.? Yes, by local leaders, the direction came from the top."

Noting that the testimony shows that the mobilisation was ordered from the higher functionaries of the State, he submitted -

"The question is why were these issues not investigated by SIT?"

Reading out from the testimony further, Mr. Sibal argued that collaboration was evident -

"In this sting operation you will find collaboration. Obviously not all. Collaboration with police, plans were made, arms were brought."

To clarify the Bench asked, "This is originally in Gujarati or Hindi?"

Mr. Sibal informed, "Hindi."

Indicating that the expression of the language could have been lost in translation, the Bench remarked, "Hindi copies..expression might be different. Was it on record?"

Not completely certain about the position, Mr. Sibal responded, "SIT had it. I'll reconfirm it."

Referring to the testimony of another member who talks about the secret meeting, he submitted -

"Now, Deepak Shah, BJP Vadodara unit member. Kindly see at pg 289. He talks about the meeting. Were you present at the meeting: The sentiment was that if we do not retaliate then it would encourage terror. First bandh was called by VHP…"

Drawing inference Mr. Sibal added, "So this also demonstrates the meetings were held."

He emphasised on the point that SIT already had the record, but essentially took no action to investigate the same -

"All of this was given to us by SIT. Nothing has been individually produced by us. All of this is part of the SIT record."

Hate letting, mob mobilisation committing violent acts against minorities - not investigated

"Third heading is hate letting, mob mobilisation committing violent acts against minorities. I have already read Babu Bajrangi. Now, Arvind Pandeya.", Mr. Sibal began his submissions of the third issue.

Reading out the testimony of Arvind Pandeya, who was a public prosecutor, as recorded by Khetan, Mr. Sibal submitted -

"[Arvind's Testimony]He says I am saying all this to you so that you can write in your book how easily people can fool the police...Half the mob engaged the police, the other half turned on the other side."

The way the political organisations worked during the riots - not investigated

As Mr. Sibal came to the issue of the manner of working of the political organisations during the Gujarat riots, the Bench enquired, "When was the contents of the tapes in the news?...2007 or 2008?"

Verifying the date, Mr. Sibal informed the Court -

"It was telecast on AajTak on 26.10.2007. I'll give the date when Tehelka published it. It was published on different dates. It is in Volume V."

Thereafter, there were some discussions on the exact date of the publication in Tehelka Magazine. Mr. Sibal assured the Court that he would find out the same and pass the information on to the Court.

Continuing with his submissions on the issue, Mr. Sibal referred to the testimony of Togadia, who was the National Vice President of Bajrang Dal -

"In the last heading - How Bajrang Dal and VPH worked in Gujarat, there is Togadia. He said he was leading, and was at the forefront. [He was the National VP of Bajrang Dal. He said he called the bandh and got dead bodies from Godhra.]...It is important why mutilated forms of the bodies were allowed to be on the public domain. Under the manuals they could have never been displayed."

Complacent role of the police - not investigated

Demonstrating police inaction and coercive action of the PPs, Mr. Sibal informed the Court -

"Next is the complacent role of police. Then Anil Patel, Babu Bajrangi and how Jaydeep Patel kept a revolver with Babu, Bharat Bhat, Dilip Trivedi, Arvind Pandeya. Just look at pg 85 Vol VA. PPs were threatening people to say things as desired by them."

Referring to the Naroda Pateya and Gulberga massacre case in the passing, Mr. Sibal submitted -

"Next is Naroda Pateya and Gulberga massacre - we are not concerned with that here. These statements were relied upon in those cases, tapes were authenticated and the accused were convicted. We have completed Vol VA and VB, other than the examination of SIT. I'll show you that."

SIT placed the transcript before the accused, they rejected it and the same was accepted by SIT

Depicting the manner in which the SIT had carried out the investigation with respect to the Tehelka tapes, he pointed out:

"SIT shows the tapes to them (accused). First, they take the statement of Ashish Khetan at 618. SIT records Ashish Khetan's statement. He sets out in detail how he went, how he recorded, how he used a spy cam. In Sept 2007 the meetings were bound up. The spycam, hard disk of the laptop were ultimately seized by CBI."

Accentuating the authentication of the Tehelka tapes by CBI, he submitted -

"CBI was asked by NHRC to authenticate it. We have extracted relevant passages. CBI authenticated the tapes after forensic voice tests of those on whom the sting was conducted...188 page document. I read the conclusion. We have not filed it, but we can hand it over during the course of the day."

The Bench felt that for the time being the CBI authentication report was not required to be filed with the Court.

Again, Mr. Sibal came back to the testimony of Arvind Pandeya before SIT. He submitted that Pandeya had refused to accept that he had indeed threatened Shreekumar, when he had candidly admitted the same during the sting operation.

"He was the counsel who was to defend the Govt. in Nanavati Shah Commission. [Before SIT he said] He advised Govt. officials wrt to the proceeding before the Commission. He said that the DGP expressed his desire to meet him... he asked him (Sreekumar) to depose as per his affidavit. In sting we showed he said he had threatened him (Sreekumar) and before SIT he said he had not threatened him."

Surprised by the approach of SIT, Mr. Sibal informed the Court that SIT had placed the transcript before the accused who had rejected it and later, the statements of rejection of the accused were accepted by SIT -

"SIT puts the transcription of the tape to him. He said the CD was tampered. He said he had lodged a criminal complaint against AajTak channel(later quashed)."

Referring to the statement of Babu Bajrangi before the SIT where he had taken a defence that he was reading the entire transcript from a movie script handed over to him by Khetan, who introduced himself as Piyush Agarwal who was making a movie on Hindutva, Mr. Sibal submitted -

"Then Babu Bajrangi. He said he (Khetan) met me but gave identity as Piyush Agarwal. What did you (Babu) say about Govardhan Zadafia. He said that he believed that Khetan was making a movie on Hindutva and he was reading from a script. He(Babu) said that he did not say anything about Govardhan Zadafia helping him."

Thereafter, Sibal apprised the Court that the defense of Baba Bajrangi fell flat before the trial court in the Naroda Pateya matter:

"This defence in Naroda Pateya has been rejected by the judge."

At this juncture the Bench pointed out that it might not be required to go into the truthfulness of the statements. It clarified that it had noted that the SIT did not investigate these issues and asked Mr. Sibal not to go further into the transcripts.

Mr. Sibal explained that he was only trying to make limited point about the investigation led by the SIT-

"They (SIT) accepted the statements by the accused. Then, I might not go through each of them. They all more or less took the same defence."

For the convenience of the Bench, he provided four crucial dates related to the authentication report of CBI -

"CBI authentication report - 08.05.2009; Forwarded to NHRC - 13.05.2009; NHRC decided to forward copy to SIT, Gandhinagar - 22.09.2009; Forwarded - 01.10.2009. They (SIT) had it from that date."

The Bench informed Mr. Sibal that the publication date in Tehelka, that they were looking for, a while back was 03.11.2007.

Acknowledging the same, Mr. Sibal highlighted that apart from Khetan's statement all the others' were recorded post 01.10.2009 i.e.after the SIT received the tapes -

"All these statements were recorded after that. Ashish's statement is before. Khetan's statement is on 27.08.2009."

The Bench further enquired, "Rest after 01.10.2009?"

Mr. Sibal responded, "Yes, all afterwards. All this part of the 188 pg CBI document. We need not quite frankly read this, they have all denied."

Mr. Sibal brought to the fore that, the issues of mob mobilisation and hate speech on 27.02.2002; inaction of policemen and other public officers; attacks before bodies reached Ahmedabad were not investigated by the SIT.

He added:

"Next Tehelka transcript on mass mobilization, then phone call record, available but not investigated."

It was brought to Mr. Sibal's notice by the Bench that the Tehelka should not be a separate heading and the testimonies should be incorporated under each of the other headers for convenience of the Court as well as the Respondent. The Bench further pointed out that the phone calls were also part of evidence and should not be put under a separate header. With respect to the phone call, Mr. Sibal refused to accept that they were merely part of evidence. He highlighted -

"With great respect, not so. Pandey had withheld call records."

Hearing Mr. Sibal grievance the Bench suggested that, "Then your main hearing would be withholding of evidence."

He accepted the Court's suggestion in this regard.

Provocative behaviour - not investigated

Reading out about provocative behaviour of the members of the organisation and the mob mobilization in this regard, Mr. Sibal submitted -

"Provocative behaviour. This was not looked into by the Mag. and HC."

The Bench suggested that the preferred chronology would be what was not dealt with by the SIT first, then Magistrate, and thereafter the High Court.

Fax message alerts not heeded; no preventive action taken - not investigated

Mr. Sibal showed that there were fax messages which had alerted beforehand about the magnitude of violence that can ensue across the State. But, they were not acted upon and unfortunately such inaction was not investigated by the SIT. He submitted -

"Just straightaway come to pg. 1. This is a fax message dated 27.02.2002. Talks about the torching of the train. Curfew imposed by VHP. Then messages of 27.02.2002 and 28.02.2002. At 3 PM the violence started. One person died and two injured there itself. BJP Mayor, leaders came to Vadodara station. Damaged property, one killed. Now, Gandhinagar."

Revealing that the translation of the messages were not carried out by SIT, but the Petitioner, he stated -

"These are translated by us. SIT did not translate them. We have given the Gujarati versions also. I don't know how SIT read it. Mr. Raghavan was there, they did not know Gujarati."

Continuing to read from the messaged, he submitted -

"Incident of killing..all started (on 27.02.2002). These are all fax messages sent from various parts of the State to Gandhinagar about the problems that are going to arise. There are several of these messages, so they knew that there would be serious consequences, that Gandhinagar should have reacted by taking preventive action. 27.02.2002 message given by SP. Dead bodies reached Kalupur at 3-3:30. 3 PM mob attack at Bapu Nagar…"

Startled that when so much intelligence about the apprehension of violence was already with the administration no action was taken to prevent the tragedy, Mr. Sibal argued -

"In this state of affairs why was curfew not declared. It was only declared at 12:45 on 28.02.2002. All these messages are of 27.02.2002. The reason why we put it is that all of these are warnings, please maintain law and order.[Message asked to] Keep police bandobast. Then how did 3000 people gather there? Those were not days of WhatsApp. Then milords kindly see item 11, the wireless message. Item 9 on preventive action to be taken at Gandhinagar. Gandhinagar was being warned throughout. So this was anticipated. To prevent mob violence only anticipation works. It is a horrendous tragedy that has happened. On 27.02.2002 you knew, yet no action was taken."

After referring to the gross police inaction, Mr. Sibal drew the Court's attention to the Gujarat Police Manual which provides guidelines about preventing and controlling violence -

"Kindly come to the Guj. Police Manual on preventing violence. Yesterday I read a judgment about how a Manual is to be followed and because it was not how the intent of the Investigating agency was suspect. Kindly see Rule 45 - Maintenance of order. Then Rule 46. [Reads out the provisions] Then, Milords, come to para 53, preventive measures to be taken during threatened communal incidents. (Sources of Intelligence to be kept on alert, smallest incident to be reported, nipped in the bud) - This was not investigated, why action was not taken. No investigation. Then Milords,Pg 37 para 60."

Emphasising on the relevance of reading out from the Manual, Mr. Sibal submitted -

"Why am I emphasising this? Your lordship may be deciding this in whatever way, but in future your lordships should lay down what is to be done. We are seeing it in Tripura, Punjab, Delhi and many other places.The manual is only a printed word. Even the Constitution is printed words. In the cold print lies the soul of the Constitution. You, through your pronouncements give it energy, it will come alive, it will not remain a dead letter. It is only this Court that can give energy to that cold print."

Vehemently arguing that such incidents of police inaction should not be allowed to thrive in future, Mr. Sibal submitted -

"We should stop this for this country in future. Then Milords, there is a whole chapter on preventive action at pg 41. Required town patrolling, village patrolling. Manual not followed.

A blind eye to the manual and we land up in this situation, which could have been prevented."

Change in statements made by Jayanti Ravi, DM Godhra before SIT - not investigated

Then, reading Jayanti Ravi, DM Godhra's statement to SIT dated 15.09.2009, Mr. Sibal pointed out that there was consensus amongst the administrative officers in sending the dead bodies to Ahmedabad by road. He read:

"She(Ravi) realised that there was going to be some problem so immediately imposed a curfew. Now come to Pg 76. It was a unanimous view, that the dead bodies could be sent to Ahmedabad by road...Some bodies were charred beyond recognition. I recollect that Jaydeep Patel accompanied the dead bodies by road."

Mr. Sibal pointed out that in a month's time she had changed her stand in the statement given on 26.10.2009. Though initially she had admitted that the stand to transport the bodies to Ahmedabad was a unanimous decision, in the later statement she had put the blame squarely on the Mamlatdar. -

"One month later she gives statement 26.10.2009. Kindly see the second para... I have been shown a letter 27.02.2002 addressed by Nalvaya, Mamlatdar regarding 52 bodies sent by 9 trucks. No instructions were issued to Nalvaya to hand over the bodies to Jaydeep Patel.The Collector Ahmedabad was informed about the dispatch of the dead bodies...The letter was sent by Nalvaya without my knowledge, which looked like instructions were given to handover bodies to Jaydeep Patel."

He added -

"She said earlier that it was a unanimous decision. Now she puts the blame on Mamlatdar. None of this investigated. Why was the post mortem done in the railway yard? Unless you fix responsibility. Within 1 month she changed her tune."

Dead Bodies handed over to private person - not investigated

Then Mr. Sibal briefly refers to the statement of Raju Bhargav, DSP of police at Godhra and goes onto the statement given by Jaypeed Patel. Mr. Sibal highlighted that the SIT did not seize Mr. Jaydeep Patel's phone when there were allegations of serious nature against him.

"Next important statement is Jaydeep Patel. 'The info about the burning coach was received by me sometime between 8:30 to 9 from some kar sevak....' He went with Hashmukh Patel. This mobile phone could have a wealth of info. Not seized, not asked for. 'I (Jaydeep) along with other VHP workers took out the bodies...I requested them to hand over the dead bodies to me for transportation to Ahmedabad. They acceded.' This is contrary to what the DM says. How could dead bodies be handed over to a private body? Not investigated."

Emphasising that it is demonstrated that there was a unanimous decision to hand over the dead bodies, Mr. Sibal argued -

"So, all the dead bodies were flashed in that state. Kindly see page 87. This is much before in the morning riots had erupted in the city. This is clear that there was a unanimous decision to hand over."

The Press Statement of Jaydeep Patel dated 27.02.2002 is referred to wherein he had made provocative statements.

"He (Jaydeep) said 'Innocent sisters were raped.' No one ever said that."

Call records of public officials - not investigated

Next the testimony of an IPC officer at Bhavnagar is taken up with respect to the telephone call records and inaction of SIT. Mr. Sibal elucidated -

"Now, kindly come to the issue of telephone call records, which again were never investigated. Now, Milords pg 109 3rd Para. 'We had information on the use of mobile phones in a big way..even in Ahmedabad'. He is an IPS officer at Bhavnagar who is saying this. Here is a Police officer who is suspecting all this is happening - that the accused, police, bureaucrat and politicians are exchanging messages over mobile phone. So this call data record was available, and was given to PP Pandey. Never analysed, never investigated, never looked at. Now kindly look at pg. 115. We got the data from SIT, we analysed it."

Mr. Sibal took the Court through the testimony of PC Pandey, Commissioner of Police given on 27.02.2002. He referred to his incoming calls to indicate collaboration.

The Bench clarified, "This is after the incident. Not before."

Mr. Sibal informed the Court, "We are not talking about Godhra."

The Bench further clarified, "This is Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad."

Mr. Sibal apprised the Court, "By then bodies did not reach."

The Court pointed out that the calls referred to by Mr. Sibal was, right after the Godhra incident, but the decision to transport the bodies was taken at night.

Highlighting his argument Mr. Sibal stated:

"Yes. But, everybody (VHP and other party members) decided they will go to Godhra. They decided in the morning."

Calling it impossible to attribute motive on anybody without any investigation in this regard, the grievance pointed out by Mr. Sibal was -

"But, the Investigating officer could have found out from PP Pandey what was happening. I am indicating that an investigation should have been done."

Mr. Sibal also informed the Court that even though Mr. PC Pandey was in the position of the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, throughout the incident he was in his office as per call record.

There is some confusion about the timing provided in the chart w.r.t. PC Pandey being in office.

The Bench noted, "He has not moved out of office, that is what you are saying. It is not 3 o'clock, it is below. We have noted that he has not moved from his office."

Mr. Sibal submitted that, "An investigation should have been carried out."

The Bench then enquired if PC Pandey's statement was recorded. The Bench was of the opinion that it might so happen that he had left his phone in office -

"This chart is showing location not call records. The chart only supports your contention. It does not establish it."

Explaining the process of identifying location and that it needed further investigation, Mr. Sibal stated -

"When I receive a call, the tower will tell me where I am. Location is recorded with respect to call or message. If I receive a call then the call record shows that I am on call, I am also present there. It is only data. Whether it required investigation or not is for the investigating officer."

The phone records of Togadia's brother dated 27.02.2002 were referred to. It was observed that among others he had called Maya Kodnani, inter alia, for distribution of weapons.

It was brought to the attention of the Court that the post mortem was over by 6:45, by the time the inquest report was signed.

To his dismay, the SIT did not investigate these aspects as well. Mr. Sibal submitted -

"Under whose orders were the post mortem being carried out at the railway yard itself... Mobile phone records show Ashok Bhat giving instructions. None of this investigated. No questions asked by SIT. All of this was pointed out by me in the protest petition. This record was available with SIT. They should have acted on it."

The Bench reminded Mr. Sibal that he was initially more concerned about the larger conspiracy. But, the Bench was unable to understand how the material put forth addressed the issue of larger conspiracy. It observed that excessive emphasis was being given on the post- mortem report at the present stage.

Rephrasing his submission, Mr Sibal argued -

"Who said what, mobile phones will only tell. Who instructed these people to do these things in this fashion. The mobile phone would reflect that, so they should have been seized and investigated. Alright, I'll leave these at this."

Referring to Mr. Jha's statement and the CD submitted by Rahul Sharma, Mr. Sibal lamented:

"Investigating agency, which had such enormous data before it, did not even investigate the call data records. First the CD record had to be authenticated. Who would do that? SIT could have. If they do not, then it cannot be looked into. He (Pandey) handed over the records in 2011. After getting the record SIT does not authenticate. Then, there was something that was hidden."

Commenting on the lack of investigation, Mr. Sibal noted that, if basic evidence is not collected and the ones collected if not analysed, then the assumption that SIT was hiding something could be drawn.

Again portraying the inaction of the public officials, Mr. Sibal submitted -

"Milords kindly note that only 2 preventive arrests in Ahmedabad that too of persons belonging to the minority community. After the outbreak, IB reports, warning by ADGP were deliberately ignored. Delay in declaring curfew and Milords Deployment of army at pg j. Kindly straightaway come to pg. 1. This is from SIT records. Among others, information of trucks full of arms with the potential to be misused was available."

Informing the Court that all these information was withheld by PC Pandey for the longest of time, he stated -

"PC Pandey produced all these to the investigating agency on 15.03.2011. Why does he submit on 15.03.2011. This becomes a serious issue."

Demonstrating that no preventing action was taken, Mr. Sibal submitted -

"Kindly see pg 4. 'Inform the control room that a large mob had gathered at the hospital, Solah'. Crowd should have been dispersed immediately...Bandobast for judges to be taken, no reply. Send fire brigade, no reply...All these messages are given in their original form."

Referring to a pictorial chart, Mr Sibal emphasised that the concerned places were not located so far away that better measures could not have been taken to prevent the riots -

"We have given a pictorial chart. This is a layout where the Solah hospital is located. 800 m is Guj HC, CP is 11 km...So, Milords, it does not take too long to do the bandobast. The key was to do preventive action. none was done, none was attempted. We have given a flow chart from the Police Control Room record. 3000 workers by 4 o'clock reached Solah Civil Hospital. [Asked to keep bandobast] No 144 imposed, no curfew imposed. They knew this would happen on 27.02.2002. This flowchart is provided by us. This is not done by SIT. And after 2011, nothing."

The inaction of the fire brigade that was elaborated discussed on earlier occasion was also referred to -

"Then comes the fire brigade issue, which I have shown your lordship. Nothing done on the first part, nothing on this."

Mr. Sibal informed the Court that a Citizen's Tribunal was set up to look into the crimes of humanity in riot torn Gujarat.

The Bench enquired if this tribunal was under SIT. Mr. Sibal informed that it was constituted by concerned citizens, including J. Sawant and J Iyer.

Further, the Bench asked: "Was this available with SIT?"

Mr. Sibal responded, "All this is available. We in fact complained about SIT. 2 members were removed."

Mr. Sibal referred to the incidents of crime on humanity indicated in the Citizen's tribunal records. The Bench pointed out that they were all newspaper reports.

"Your Lordship is correct. But in these situations of riots. Coming to Delhi, everything in Delhi riot is on video. Till date they have refused to give that video,"  submitted Mr. Sibal.

Letters of public officers - not investigated

Referring to a confidential letter given to ACS by one Radhakrishna, he argued:

"This is also not on larger conspiracy. It shows the extent of damage caused because preventive measures were not taken."

Reading out from letters written by Shreekumar, Mr. Sibal pointed out that he had strong opinions about the state of affairs after the riots and therefore SIT dubiously discarded his testimony. -

"Then 3-4 letter of Shreekumar, ADG Intelligence. His evidence was discarded on the ground that he was a motivated officer. That is what SIT said. When incident happened he (Shreekumar) was not posted, he had the records. Kindly come to 177. [Shreekumar talks about Police officers not being fair, in registering cases, towards minority community; accused not named by police, loopholes in prosecution; complaint from Muslim community that police was avoiding arrest of hindu leaders etc.] When an amicus was appointed. It was (most probably) Salve. He gave a list of cases where PPs had not opposed bail. Naturally when the officers was saying that this was happening in police, he was bound to be unpopular. Then milords the prognosis."

The Bench expressed concern about the appendix mentioned in the document and its relevance. Assuring that he would provide information regarding the same, Mr. Sibal continued with the letters of Shreekumar and how SIT dealt with them -

"This is one letter he wrote. Then another letter he wrote on 20th Aug at 187 and the last document was 28th Aug. Again this is a secret. The first letter is appendix 24, second is 4, third is 5 and forth is 7. I'll tell your Lordship the source of all these. [He(Shreekumar) talks about restoration of the faith of the public, especially people belonging to the minority community in the criminal justice system.] He says change the functionaries. That's why he became unpopular. Shreekumar himself handed over all the four letters to SIT. SIT says he is a motivated officer. What is motivated about it. This is what Tehelka tape, NHRC, Citizen's Tribunal say. SIT said that he was superseded in 2005 and that is why he gave this statement."

"Now, another officer, Maniram. He corroborates Shreekumar." - pointed out Mr. Sibal.

Providing statements corroborating Shreekumar, he submitted -

"Milords he is saying the same thing, Shreekumar supports him and he is disbelieved. Luckily, we have evidence of the Police Commissioner himself, which says how ministers were interfering. Who has investigated this? Nobody. Who brought this minister to task? Nobody."

Hearing to continue next Tuesday i.e. 23.11.2021.

Click Here To Read/Download The Order