Trouble returns

The charge  against Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi that he played a role in inciting Hindus against Muslims in the 2002 communal riots has got a fillip with the recommendation of the amicus curiae appointed by the Supreme Court that  there should be further investigation of the matter.  The court had appointed senior lawyer Raju Ramachandran to study independently the charges against Modi, if necessary, after interacting with witnesses, and report to it. This was after the Special Investigation Team (SIT), appointed by it, was considered to have reported to the court that there was no sufficient evidence to prosecute the controversial chief minister. The SIT report had stirred up a controversy, especially in the light of allegations levelled  against Modi by IPS officer Sanjeev Bhatt, and the complaint by the widow of a Congress MP,  Ehsan Jafri, that he had abetted in the killing of the MP.

The Supreme Court had last month decided not to pass an order on the request to prosecute Modi and had returned the Jafri case to a trial court in Ahmedabad. This was the normal procedure as the trial in a case takes place at the lower level. But the BJP had interpreted the apex court’s decision as exoneration of Modi and even he had gone about celebrating it. However this was wrong and premature as the court had directed that the charges against Modi, the reports of the SIT and the amicus curiae and other testimonies  by  witnesses would all have to be considered by the trial court. It had also observed that the trial court can order further investigation in the case.

Since the amicus curiae has recommended further investigation, there are chances of Modi’s prosecution in the case. The report has called for further examination of Sanjeev Bhatt’s claim that Modi had, in a meeting of senior officials, instructed them to allow Hindus to vent their anger against Muslims. Bhatt was later arrested by the Gujarat police in a vindictive measure. But the amicus curiae has rejected the state government’s argument that Bhatt levelled charges against Modi and other officials because he was a disgruntled officer. This lends some credence to Bhatt’s claims.

Bhatt has become a crucial witness, as he has always maintained that he has strong evidence to back up his charge and he would produce it n the court. So it is not yet closure for  Modi in the long saga of the search for truth about the Gujarat killings.