Your Ad Here

Gujarat riots: Probe Modi, says Supreme Court amicus curiae

Amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran's report on the 2002 Gujarat riots found that the role Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi needs to be investigated under various sections of IPC, as there are "circumstantial evidence available requiring further probe." "Hence, the question to be examined
is whether the making of the statement by the chief minister in the meeting on 27.02.2002, by itself, is an offence under law. In my opinion, the offences which can be made out against Shri Modi, at this prima facie stage, are offences inter alia under Sections 153A (1) (a) & (b), 153B (1) (c), 166 and 505 (2) of the IPC. However, it would be for the Court of competent jurisdiction to decide whether Shri Modi has to be summoned for any or all of these offences, or for any other offence(s)," Ramachandran noted in the report, which has for the first time been made available in public domain.

According to him, there are a number of circumstances which prima-facie indicate that the matter requires a detailed investigation to examine the role of Modi immediately after the Sabarmati Express train burning incident in Godhra to find out if there is any culpability to the extent that a message was conveyed that the state machinery would not step in to prevent the communal riots.

Moreover, Ramchandran also observed that that cases are made against MK Tandon, the then joint commissioner of police, Ahmedabad and PB Gondia, the then deputy commissioner of police, Ahmedabad under Sections 304A IPC and 166 IPC. Random is retired now while Gondia is serving on a sidelined posting in Gujarat police.

The report also noted that the Further Investigation Report found that a meeting was held at Modi's residence, on February 27, 2002 at around 11 pm in which senior bureaucrats and senior police officials were present. The report also says that the claim made by IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt, the then Deputy Commissioner of Police (Intelligence), that he was present at the meeting was incorrect.