By Deccan Herald
It is too early to consider the Supreme Court’s decision not to pass an order against Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi on the complaint against him that he abetted the killing of a Congress MP, Ehsan Jafri, during the post-Godhra communal riots, as a clean chit for him.
The court has only returned to a trial court in Ahmedabad, the complaint, the evidence collected by a Special investigation Team (SIT) appointed by it and the views of an amicus curiae, again appointed by the court, on the SIT’s findings. That means Modi has not been absolved of the charges levelled against him. All the 62 accused in the case, including Modi, will have to face the trial court’s proceedings.
The mistaken notion that Modi has won a victory has arisen from the fact that the Supreme Court has refused to hear and decide on the case. But the trial in a case is to be conducted in a lower court and not in the Supreme Court.
The apex court had ordered the special investigation and then an independent review by an amicus curiae. There were charges that the findings of the SIT did not match its conclusions. The amicus curiae is considered to have brought this to the notice of the court. Now the charges against Modi, the reports of the SIT and the amicus curiae and other testimonies about the alleged role of Modi in the riots will all be considered by the trial court. The apex court has also directed that the trial court should give a hearing to the petitioner before it decides on closure of the case.
This is the right legal procedure and the court has stuck to it. It has refrained from further monitoring of the investigation because it is no longer needed now. It has in the past stopped its monitoring of investigations in some cases after they were completed. The trial court can in any case order further investigation if it feels it is necessary.
The law will now take its regular course and both sides will have equal rights in pursuing its course. It was when the request of Ehsan Jafri’s widow for filing an FIR against Modi in the case was rejected by the Gujarat police and the state high court that she approached the Supreme Court. When the request has been more than conceded, it can not be called Modi’s victory.
It is too early to consider the Supreme Court’s decision not to pass an order against Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi on the complaint against him that he abetted the killing of a Congress MP, Ehsan Jafri, during the post-Godhra communal riots, as a clean chit for him.
The court has only returned to a trial court in Ahmedabad, the complaint, the evidence collected by a Special investigation Team (SIT) appointed by it and the views of an amicus curiae, again appointed by the court, on the SIT’s findings. That means Modi has not been absolved of the charges levelled against him. All the 62 accused in the case, including Modi, will have to face the trial court’s proceedings.
The mistaken notion that Modi has won a victory has arisen from the fact that the Supreme Court has refused to hear and decide on the case. But the trial in a case is to be conducted in a lower court and not in the Supreme Court.
The apex court had ordered the special investigation and then an independent review by an amicus curiae. There were charges that the findings of the SIT did not match its conclusions. The amicus curiae is considered to have brought this to the notice of the court. Now the charges against Modi, the reports of the SIT and the amicus curiae and other testimonies about the alleged role of Modi in the riots will all be considered by the trial court. The apex court has also directed that the trial court should give a hearing to the petitioner before it decides on closure of the case.
This is the right legal procedure and the court has stuck to it. It has refrained from further monitoring of the investigation because it is no longer needed now. It has in the past stopped its monitoring of investigations in some cases after they were completed. The trial court can in any case order further investigation if it feels it is necessary.
The law will now take its regular course and both sides will have equal rights in pursuing its course. It was when the request of Ehsan Jafri’s widow for filing an FIR against Modi in the case was rejected by the Gujarat police and the state high court that she approached the Supreme Court. When the request has been more than conceded, it can not be called Modi’s victory.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.