After putting the investigation of nine major Gujarat riots cases back on the rails under the aegis of a special investigation team and constant monitoring during the past eight years, a “satisfied” Supreme Court on Tuesday permitted trial judges in the state to go ahead with their verdicts in eight cases as soon as proceedings are complete.

The apex court also allowed pronouncement of judgment in the Godhra train burning case related to the killing of 59 karsevaks returning from Ayodhya in February 2002 triggering widespread communal violence in Gujarat. The trial court had already reserved its verdict.
A special bench comprising Justices D.K. Jain, P. Sathasivam and Aftab Alam, which put in a special effort to ensure smooth investigations and trials in these cases, related to the killing of hundreds of people, passed its order on a PIL filed by the NHRC, which in an unprecedented move had sought the Supreme Court’s intervention after nearly 2,000 FIRs were closed by the Gujarat police without proper investigation.
However, the top court continued its stay order of May 6 on pronouncements in the Gulberg Society massacre in which Congress MP Ehsan Jafri was one of the victims. The stay was continued as SIT chairman R.K. Raghavan had sought time to submit the final report after taking legal “opinion” against three “individuals found involved” in the case, though the probe, he said, was complete.
Mr Raghavan, though, did not mention the names of the three persons, but the SIT in its first report in May had mentioned the names of former home minister Gordhan Zadafia, former top police officer M.K. Tandon and serving CID inspector-general P.B. Gondia. The SIT had recently interrogated them. “We are satisfied with the (SIT) report except in case No. 67/02 of Meghaninagar relating to Gulberga Society and stay on the pronouncement of judgment in it will continue,” said Justice Jain, heading the bench.
Earlier, the SIT had been directed to investigate afresh the Gulberga case after the slain Congress MP’s widow, Ms Zakia Jafri, filed a petition seeking a probe against Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi and 59 others, including several BJP and Sangh Parivar leaders and workers and top civil and police officers. The SIT had questioned Mr Modi over two days. The apex court gave the SIT till December 2 to complete the investigation and submit its final report on Ms Jafri’s petition.
The cases referred by the NHRC are Gulberga Society, Ode, Sardarpura, Narodao Gaon, Naroda Patiya, Baranpura, Machipith, Tarsali, Pandarwada and Raghavapura.
The top court also issued notice to the Gujarat government on a petition by the NGO Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) seeking the transfer of the Gulberga case from the court of sessions judge U.B. Joshi in Ahmedabad. The notice came after the NGO’s counsel, Ms Kamini Jaiswal, alleged the judge was not conducting the trial as per laid-down procedure and referred to media reports about the alleged “improper” treatment of Ms Zakia Jafri during her cross-examination. The Gujarat government was asked to submit its affidavit within two weeks; the matter is to be taken up on December 2.
The court also allowed the withdrawal of activist advocate Prashant Bhushan as amicus curiae in Ms Zafri’s petition after the Gujarat government questioned his “impartiality”, saying Mr Bhushan could not be expected to be “fair” as he had attacked the state government and Mr Modi from various forums.
Mr Bhushan, though, admitted he certainly has “strong views” on the Gujarat riots and that he had criticised Mr Modi, but that should not be a reason to doubt his credentials. But the court left it to the “conscience” of Mr Bhushan and refused to say anything, following which he asked to be recused.
The bench adjourned the hearing sine die on an application seeking action against CJP activist Testa Setalwad for allegedly filing “false affidavits”, saying it would consider all such applications only after wrapping up the main proceedings.
“We don’t want to divert our attention from the main issue at the moment,” the bench said when senior advocate Shekhar Naphade wanted the petition against Ms Setalwad taken up.