Gujarat Violence 2002: Supreme Court Verdict On Zakia Jafri’s Petition Today, Husband Died In Gujarat Riots

hear the news

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition filed by former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri’s wife Zakia Jafri challenging the clean chit given to the then Narendra Modi and others by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) in connection with the 2002 Gujarat riots. Was. A bench of Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice CT Ravikumar said in its order, “We uphold the magistrate’s decision to accept the SIT report and dismiss the protest petition.” There is lack of merit in this appeal, hence the petition is dismissed.

The Supreme Court had reserved its decision on 8 December 2021 after a marathon hearing of 14 days. Ehsan Jafri was killed in the Gulberg Society massacre during the Gujarat riots. The 2017 Gujarat High Court judgment was challenged in the petition before the apex court. The High Court had upheld the magistrate’s decision to accept the closure report filed by the SIT in the case. Following the Gujarat riots, Zakia Jafri had filed a complaint in 2006 with the then Director General of Police, Gujarat, seeking registration of an FIR under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including murder (Section-302). The complaint was made against various bureaucrats and politicians including Modi. Modi was the Chief Minister of Gujarat at that time.

In 2008, the apex court had constituted the SIT and asked it to submit a report on several trials in connection with the riots. Later, the SIT was also ordered to probe the complaint filed by Jafri. The SIT report gave a clean chit to Modi. In the year 2011, the Supreme Court directed the SIT to submit its closure report before the concerned magistrate and the petitioner was given liberty to file his objections to the said report. In the year 2013, the petitioner filed a petition opposing the closure report. The magistrate upheld the closure report of the SIT and dismissed Jafri’s plea. After which Zakia approached the Gujarat High Court. The High Court in the year 2017 upheld the magistrate’s decision and dismissed the petition filed by Jafri. Jafri, along with activist Teesta Setalvad, had challenged this decision in the Supreme Court to accept the clean chit of the SIT.

During the hearing in the Supreme Court, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner, claimed that the SIT did not examine all the materials available and there was bias in its investigation. He had argued that the state had helped spread hatred. The bodies were shown on TV channels, which apparently sparked anger. The material was circulated to promote economic boycott of Muslims. Distorted pictures of Sabarmati Express were circulated. Sibal said that the accused police, bureaucrats and politicians were exchanging messages on mobile phones, none of which were confiscated. Sibal had also mentioned how some Gujarati newspapers propagated hatred. On the other hand, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the SIT, had termed the arguments of the petitioner as baseless and said that the SIT had done a thorough investigation.

Expansion

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition filed by former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri’s wife Zakia Jafri challenging the clean chit given to the then Narendra Modi and others by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) in connection with the 2002 Gujarat riots. Was. A bench of Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice CT Ravikumar said in its order, “We uphold the magistrate’s decision to accept the SIT report and dismiss the protest petition.” There is lack of merit in this appeal, hence the petition is dismissed.

The Supreme Court had reserved its decision on 8 December 2021 after a marathon hearing of 14 days. Ehsan Jafri was killed in the Gulberg Society massacre during the Gujarat riots. The 2017 Gujarat High Court judgment was challenged in the petition before the apex court. The High Court had upheld the magistrate’s decision to accept the closure report filed by the SIT in the case. Following the Gujarat riots, Zakia Jafri had filed a complaint in 2006 with the then Director General of Police, Gujarat, seeking registration of an FIR under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including murder (Section-302). The complaint was made against various bureaucrats and politicians including Modi. Modi was the Chief Minister of Gujarat at that time.

In 2008, the apex court had constituted the SIT and asked it to submit a report on several trials in connection with the riots. Later, the SIT was also ordered to probe the complaint filed by Jafri. The SIT report gave a clean chit to Modi. In the year 2011, the Supreme Court directed the SIT to submit its closure report before the concerned magistrate and the petitioner was given liberty to file his objections to the said report. In the year 2013, the petitioner filed a petition opposing the closure report. The magistrate upheld the closure report of the SIT and dismissed Jafri’s plea. After which Zakia approached the Gujarat High Court. The High Court in the year 2017 upheld the magistrate’s decision and dismissed the petition filed by Jafri. Jafri, along with activist Teesta Setalvad, had challenged this decision in the Supreme Court to accept the clean chit of the SIT.

During the hearing in the Supreme Court, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner, claimed that the SIT did not examine all the materials available and there was bias in its investigation. He had argued that the state had helped spread hatred. The bodies were shown on TV channels, which apparently sparked anger. The material was circulated to promote economic boycott of Muslims. Distorted pictures of Sabarmati Express were circulated. Sibal said that the accused police, bureaucrats and politicians were exchanging messages on mobile phones, none of which were confiscated. Sibal had also mentioned how some Gujarati newspapers propagated hatred. On the other hand, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the SIT, had termed the arguments of the petitioner as baseless and said that the SIT had done a thorough investigation.

,