Thursday, 27 June 2013

2013-06-24 New Question to SIT

ARTICLE

Sacrilegious exoneration of authors of 2002 Gujarat anti minority genocide by SIT –A study.                            
                                                OR
Hundred and two pitfalls by SIT in investigation of complaint against the Chief Minister Narendra Modi by Jakia Nasim Ahesan Jafri.

The 2002 Gujarat communal violence, killing nearly 2000 people coupled with failure of Gujarat state functionaries to purposefully prosecute architects of riots have plunged the image and reputation of Gujarat State Administration to abysmal depths of ignominy, besides affecting the stature of Indian Nation as a well- administered country. The Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by Dr. R.K. Raghavan, former CBI Director has failed to put on trial all five category of criminals (1- The planner – The Chief Minister Narendra Modi and leaders of the Sangh Pariwar – (2) The organizer (Sangh Pariwar activists) (3) The mobilizer at the grass root level- procurers of weapons and marshals of violent mobs –(4) The Perpetrator of violence or foot soldiers of mass crimes – armed belligerent crowds – and (5) The Facilitator/Enabler-Police, those in Executive Magistracy and other government servants-, whose active reprehensible collaboration had only ensured execution of extensive mass violence against the targeted Muslim minority community.

The SIT had submitted closure report on 08 Feb,2012 to the Court recommending exoneration of all 63 accused persons in the petition filed by Jakia Nasim Ahesan  Jafri. A study of this report and recent protest petition by her will establish that SIT had intentionally ignored practically all evidence establishing culpability of accused, in planning and perpetration of violence and subversion of the Criminal Justice System (CJS) to impede justice delivery to riot victims.

The defense architecture designed by SIT to house the Chief Minister Narendra Modi ( hereinafter referred to as CM Modi) and 62 others in a safe heaven of immunity from legal action for their genocidal crimes and manipulation of CJS has the following facets:-

1)   Deliberately not professionally assessing all incriminating evidence in the statement of witnesses, avoiding close perusal of records, not doing ground level enquires, not organizing deeper examination of witnesses and accused, and use of tools of forensic science and so on.

2)   Compartmentalization of evidence to avoid building a chain of circumstantial and collateral material about planning, preparation and execution of violent crimes and biased approach to complaints by riot victim survivors.
3)   Acceptance of statements by accused as gospel truth without ground level investigation and further examination of relevant witnesses and documents.
4)   Myopic assessment of each point of evidence against accused and rejecting these on technical grounds.
5)   Refusal to accept request of important witnesses to put them under Narco and Brain finger print test.
6)   Refusal to respond and reply to witnesses submitting suggestions for further investigation, and thereafter initiate action.
7)   Refusal to prove material evidence through forensic examination of audiotapes by witnesses and blindly accepting the allegation of accused about the validity of material in tapes.
8)   Refusal to acknowledge or respond to letters and submissions by witnesses about facts relating to Jakia complaint.
9)   Refusal to record statements of witnesses u/s 164 CRPC before a court, despite requests made by witnesses in this connection.
These are serious professional lapses.

A study of closure report  and protest petition would indicate that SIT had tried to secure the interests of the creamy layer of political and administrative bureaucracy in Gujarat- from Dysp to the Chief Minister-but had simultaneously arrested and prosecuted many criminals directly involved in anti minority offences. Through this strategy SIT could project that it had done better than Gujarat Police, who avoided to arrest and prosecute even the perpetrators of ghastly massacre in places like Naroda Patia, Gulbarg Society, Sardarpura etc. Non-involvement of the CM Modi and senior officers in crimes is ensured by SIT by keeping the complicity level of govt. officials as low as a position of police inspector (only two Police Inspectors were arrested by SIT for riots).

In this context the following questions regarding pitfalls committed by SIT to protect accused persons figuring in Jakia petition are raised.
1) Why SIT had failed to see acts of alleged omission and commission by the accused that is, A) Non implementation of administrative directions and Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in Gujarat Police Manuel and booklets viz Communal Peace; DGP K.V. Joseph pamphlet on how to deal with communal riots; Area wise Communal Riots Scheme; Recommendations of Justice Reddy and Justice Dave Commission reports on communal riots; and so on,  B)  Delay in imposition of curfew in Ahmedabad City up to 1 PM on 28 Feb, 2002- the VHP sponsored Bandh Day,  C)  Non-enforcement of curfew in Ahmedabad City and Vadodara facilitating rioters to go on a killing spree ( 96 killed during curfew hours in Ahmedabad City and nearly 20 in Vadodara City)  D) Entrusting dead bodies of 54 Hindus killed in Godhra train fire to VHP leaders, while govt. officials should have taken the bodies to relatives as per govt. regulations  E) Positioning two state Cabinet Ministers (not in charge of Home Department) in the operational centers (control rooms) of DGP Office and Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad city office, in violation of the Rules of Business,  F) Not issuing any direction to VHP and Bandh supporters about Kerala HC orders banning Bandhs and not prosecuting violators of the court orders,  G)  Non-maintenance of minutes or any records on law and order review meetings convened by DGP to CM,  H)  Transfer of officer in charge of districts (SP) in the thick of riots, for their ‘fault’ of controlling riots ( from the districts of Bhavnagar, Kutch, Banaskantha, Bharooch, Surendranagar etc.)   I) Rewarding officers who acted as enablers of rioters and collaborators in subversion of CJS against riots victim survivors- as part of a devilish design, and so on. Each act of delinquency constitutes circumstantial evidence towards actualization of anti minority violence, in pursuit of conspiracy hatched by accused persons.
2) Why SIT had treated each of these instances of misdeeds by officials, in violation of SOP, as compartmentalized and isolated events/developments like a bunch of de-professionalized police officers?

3)   The decisions of the Apex court like

1)   Transfer of trial of two cases to Maharashtra State.
2)    Investigation of one mass rape case (Bilkis Bano case) by CBI
3)   Re-investigation of 2000 odd cases closed by Gujarat Police
4)   Entrusting investigation of nine major carnage cases to the Special Investigation Team (SIT) chaired by Dr. R.K.Raghavan.
5)    Investigation of two fake encounter cases by CBI
6)   Appointment of a Special Task Force (STF), headed by Justice Bedi to probe into 17 alleged fake encounter cases in Gujarat from October, 2002 to February 2007- and making observation characterizing those in Gujarat Police as “ The modern day Neros” (2004) would establish that CJS was subverted since the commencement of 2002 riots. Why SIT could not find any evidence in corroboration of strictures by the Apex court?
4)   Similar observations were made by the Special Court in its judgment on Naroda Patia bloodbath (August 2012) killing 96 persons. Why SIT, unlike the court, did not find any culpable guilt in the policing by Ahmedabad City Police on the day of Naroda Patia massacre and in the quality of investigation of cases?
5)   How did SIT reach the conclusion that specific curative measures to remedy the anti-minority bias of Gujarat Police, suggested in four reports of State Intelligence Branch (SIB) were implemented without ground level enquiries by contacting riot victim survivors, complainants, scrutiny of case papers and deeper study of court’s observations in riot related cases?
6)   Why SIT did not find anything blameworthy in the inaction of DGP and State Home Department in not acting on proposals by SIB and executive police officers in the field, against publishing communally inciting materials and media reports?
7)   Why SIT did not find anything wrong in the state govt. not acting on numerous strictures against officials by courts, as per Gujarat Police Manuel and other regulations?
8)   Why SIT did not find anything wrong in appointment of office bearers and supporters of Sangh Pariwar as Public Prosecutors to conduct cases against Hindu accused persons?
9)   Why SIT did not find anything wrong in State govt. officials presenting false and misleading data to the full bench meeting of Central Election Commission (CEC) on 09/08/2002 ?
10)                       Why SIT had failed to notice the deliberate non-implementation of Gujarat Police Manuel (GPM) stipulations regarding supervision of grave crimes related to riots by Senior police officers?
11)                       Did not SIT know that appointment of SIT by the Apex court was on account of inadequate commitment of Gujarat administration in riot cases and lack a faith of riot victims in the state administration?
12)                      Why SIT did not find anything wrong in the act of DGP giving illegal written orders to R.B. Sreekumar (hereafter referred to as RBS), in charge SIB, for not providing information on communally sensitive speech by CM Modi to National Commission for Minorities?
13)                      Why SIT did not accept admission by Arvind Pandya, the govt. pleader in Operation kalank by Tehalka magazine, about his intimidating and tutoring RBS to force him to depose, in favor of the government, before Justice Nanavati Commission (hereafter referred to as JNC)?

14)                       Why SIT did not move the court for taking Narco and Polygraph test of all participants who attended the controversial meeting by the CM on 27 Feb, 2002 in his residence in which allegedly the CM directed all to give a free hand to the Hindus to take revenge on the Muslims?
15)                       Why SIT did not put witnesses like RBS and Sanjeev Bhatt, for undergoing Narco and Brain finger print tests, to establish veracity of their statements,despite their requests?
16)                      Why SIT did not probe deeply about the reasons behind abnormally high rate death of Muslims in the state in communal riots (77 %) and police firing (59%), though Hindus were aggressors? Similar is the case of percentage of destruction of property- 88% of Muslims and 12% of Hindus.
17)                       Why SIT did not test the period of entries in the Register of RBS, kept with seal and certificate of IGP O.P.Mathur, through tools of forensic science?
18)                       Why SIT did not take on record numerous media reports, including video clips, about parading of dead bodies of Godhra train fire victims in Ahmedabad City and belligerent Hindu crowds accompanying dead bodies shouting anti-Islamic slogans?
19)                       Why SIT had treated the acts of tutoring, pressurizing and intimidation of ADGP RBS by two state Home Department officials- Under Secretary Dinesh Kapadia and Secretary G.C. Murmu along with Government Pleader Arvind Pandya as innocuous legal acts though these acts were punishable under sections 193 r/w 116 IPC, 186 and 506 IPC?
20)                      Did SIT get an impression that RBS wanted a briefing from Dinesh Kapadia, a junior civilian officer, with no experience in investigation and deposition before the judicial bodies, after assessing the text of his interaction with RBS?
21)                       How could SIT treat attempts by Home Department Officials (Home department being the supervisory authority of police officers) to intimidate RBS as harmless ethical acts?
22)                       Why SIT did not see anything improper, deviant and illegal in these officials tutoring a witness summoned by JNC to collect evidence about the role of officials of Home Dept. also during the riots and afterwards?
23)                      How could SIT treat advice and suggestion by Dinesh Kapadia to RBS, viz “the truth need not be told to the Commission”… “no purpose will be served by speaking truth to the Commission”… “be little bit cautious, just to ensure that you are totally objective, to prevent any harm, which is likely to be done by the government, because of the deposition… “These Commissions are paper tigers” etc. as legal and proper and not interfering in the normal functioning of a Senior Police officer? Did not these advices by Kapadia aim at blocking flow of truthful information to JNC?
24)                      Why did Secretary G.C.Murmu held the tutoring exercise of RBS in a private guest house instead of in rooms of Home Dept. or Police Bhavan?
25)                      As regards intimidatory tutoring imposed on RBS, did not SIT find the direction and objective of instruction by these people to RBS was to go against the Govt. Notification on terms of reference to JNC Dated-06/03/2002 and 27/02/2004 and so were illegal? Is it not the duty of every Govt. servant to act as per the requirements of Govt. Notifications? How could SIT treat any move against the notifications as legal acts? Did not advice of Murmu and Pandya to RBS to support conspiracy theory regarding Godhra train fire incident amount to abetment to perjury? Similar is the illegality in the advice of Murmu to RBS, viz to avoid speaking in favor of SIB reports, the advice of Pandya “You are my witness…. If I obtained permission from the Court, you are hostile to false nature and me. I will cross-examine and then notice will be issued by Govt. to you regarding integrity and everything. In sum I cannot cross-examine my witnesses etc”. Did not the hint of Murmu to call former ACS Ashok Narayan (hereafter referred as ACS.AN) for tutoring prove that Govt. was tutoring all witnesses to JNC as part of an illegal drill? Why SIT did not accept admission by Pandya in the sting operation by Tehelka magazine, (deemed by court which issued Naroda Patia judgment as admissible), as an extra judicial confession?
26)                       Why SIT did not enquire on veracity of each entry in the Register recording verbal orders of higher officers maintained by RBS?
27)                       Why SIT did not suggest action against RBS if entries in the Register were proved be false?
28)                       Did SIT expect that officials who were party to issuance of illegal instructions to RBS would corroborate him regarding matter narrated in the Register?
29)                       Did SIT conclude that entries about illegal instructions in the Register of RBS were fabricated by him?
30)                       Why SIT did not probe further about the commencement of fake encounters by Gujarat Police (from Oct/2002) after the transfer of RBS from the post of ADGP Int. on 18 Sept.2002., in  the light of entries regarding the Chief Secretary G.Subbarao suggesting to DGP ( on 01/05/2002 )and RBS ( on 28/06/2002) to organize elimination of Muslim extremists and those likely to disturb “Ahmedabad Rath Yatra”?
31)                       What was the option left to RBS to remember and record the proceedings of many meetings other than maintaining a Register, as relevant authorities did not prepare minutes of the meetings?
32)                      Why no opinion was given by SIT about the legal validity of the Register in the light of section 35 of Indian Evidence Act?
33)                       Why no probe was made about contemporary events from police and media records on the credibility of evidence recorded in the Register?
34)                       Why SIT did not act upon suggestion by RBS in his representation to SIT, praying for not invalidating his evidence through his letter Dated-30/11/2010 (Para E, sub Para 1 to 10- pages 18 to 22)?
35)                       When two witnesses namely ADGP (Law and Order) Maniram and Dysp. S.M.Pathak corroborated entries by RBS regarding transactions involved by them and SIT had accepted their versions as trustworthy, how could SIT declare that the act of maintaining a Register was motivated and that entries were not acceptable because of non-corroboration by the accused persons who were only exclusive participants in the meetings? Did not SIT know that these persons had vested interests in not supporting RBS, since such an action would be self-incriminating to them?
36)                       How could delay in presentation of evidence by RBS about the Register and tutoring by Home Dept. officials reduce the truthfulness of each transaction presented therein?
37)                       Why did SIT accept the allegation of accused about tampering of audio records presented by RBS without sending these records for forensic examination?
38)                       What was the independent evidence collected by SIT to declare evidence by RBS as motivated, other than the statements by the accused?
39)                       How could credibility of evidence collected by RBS, per se, get reduced even if these were collected with a motivation and that too when the material was scientifically produced?
40)                       Why SIT did not accept judgment of Amicus curiae, Raju Ramachandran, who deemed that maintenance of Register by RBS and recording of conversation of illegal tutoring were not motivated?
41)                      Why SIT did fail to notice that RBS did not comply with illegal verbal and written orders by higher officers and tutoring by Home Dept. officials on deposition before the JNC?
42)                       While invalidating evidential merit of nine affidavits of RBS (663 pages), why SIT had ignored the fact that the state govt. and JNC did not declare the material in the affidavits to be false and fabricated?
43)                        By devaluing evidence by RBS, by SIT, on flimsy technical grounds, did SIT want to sent the massage to govt. officials that illegal orders of seniors should be complied with and records about such orders should not be maintained?
44)                       Why SIT had ignored the fact that RBS was transferred out from the post of ADGP (Int.) after a tenure of five months and nine days, for his open violation of illegal written orders by DGP Chakrabarti for not reporting the verbatim version of CM Modi’s objectionable speech against Muslims, to the National Commission for Minorities?
45)                       Why SIT had ignored the fact that super session of RBS in promotion to the rank of DGP was an outcome of his refusal to comply with illegal orders of seniors and tutoring by Home Dept. officials and Govt. Pleader Pandya?
46)                       Why SIT did not find anything abnormal in the State Govt. giving out of turn promotion superseding RBS to G.C. Raiger and J. Mahapatra (who were ADGP Int. before and after the tenure of RBS in that post, though both were junior to RBS and they did not submit any damaging evidence against the Govt.)?
47)                        Why SIT did not find anything objectionable in State Govt. posting G. C. Raiger after his retirement as member, spurious liquor probe commission under a High Court Judge, with the status of a judge?
48)                        Why did SIT ignore the fact that G.C. Raiger did not file any affidavit, even though he was ADGP (Int.) in the period of major anti-minority riots from 27 Feb, 2002 to 08 April, 2002?
49)                         J.Mahapatra, ADGP who succeeded RBS as ADGP (Int) had not provided important records to RBS when RBS was preparing his second affidavit to JNC in October,2004. In the light of this fact did SIT find anything objectionable in the State Govt. posting him as Chairman State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) after his retirement?
50)                        How did SIT doubt the veracity of entries in RBS Register when ACS Ashok Narayanan (hereafter referred as ACS AN) in his statement to SIT admitted that entries in the Register regarding the meeting convened by the CEC on 09 August, 2002 “are broadly true”?
51)                        Why SIT did not question ACS AN regarding his revelation to RBS (See ninth affidavit of RBS) that the State Administration and the CM did not give instruction to take action on SIB reports about anti-Muslim attitude of police officers, though these reports were shown to the CM?
52)                        Why SIT did not confront the CM Modi with revelations by ACS AN about his inaction over SIB reports and recorded CM Modi’s explanation? (Tape of interaction of ACS AN with RBS is available)
53)                        Why SIT did not verify claims of the CP Ahmedabad P.C.Pandae about follow of action taken by him on SIB reports to correct anti-Muslim bias of officers, through ground level enquires and scrutiny of case papers?
54)                        Did SIT get any independent evidence other than the false claims by accused about follow- up action on SIB reports? (SIT closure report did not indicate any such item)
55)                        If the claims of the accused were true why Naroda Patia judgment confirmed about anti-Muslim bias of the administration, even at the time of SIT taking over investigation of Naroda Patia case in June, 2008?
56)                        Why did SIT underrate SIB reports for taking corrective measures, sent to Govt. from April to August 2002 (not earlier or later periods) by deeming these as “general” when SIB had no power to study individual case papers in possession of executive police officers?
57)                        Did SIT check up with the authors of SIB reports and riot victims to decide on the veracity of claims by accused about their implementation of suggestion by SIB?
58)                        Why SIT had failed to notice that since SIB recommendations were not implemented by the Govt., the riot victim survivors had gone to the higher judiciary who had passed adverse comments on the impartiality, professionalism and commitment to the Rule of Law of the Gujarat Police?
59)                        Did not SIT deem that the criminal posture of the State Govt. to give free hand to unscrupulous officers to subvert justice delivery to riot victims amounted to commission of offenses u/s 166,186 and 187 IPC?
60)                        Why SIT did not send audiotape containing interaction between RBS and ACS AN for forensic examination and thereafter initiate further probe by recording statements of relevant officers?
61)                        Why SIT had ignored specific suggestions by RBS and Teesta Setalvad to record statements of UP Police and Central IB officers who had direct evidence about the actual process of fire in S6 Bogie at Godhra on 27 Feb, 2002?
62)                        Why SIT had avoided perusal of records of Army and Central Para-military Forces  (CPMF) and did not record statements of the officers of these forces deployed for maintenance of law and order in Gujarat during 2002 communal riots, despite specific request to this effect by RBS?
63)                        Without these exercises of getting evidence from outside agencies, which were deployed for duties with Gujarat Police, how did SIT arrive at a judgment that Gujarat Administration had performed duties creditably (as observed by SIT in closure report) during the riots?
64)                        Did not SIT know that suggestion of SIB to get officers transferred from riot affected areas in its report of 24 April, 2002 was implemented only in the second week of May, 2002, and that too after the arrival of KPS Gill as adviser to CM Modi?
65)                        Why SIT did not record the statement of KPS Gill on relevant matters?
66)                        Why and How SIT had justified the inaction of the accused in not acting on proposal of SIB to prosecute publishers of communally inciting materials on the flimsy ground that SIB did not produce adequate evidence?
67)                        Did not SIT know that SIB had no investigating powers to collect evidence and so it was the duty of DGP and Govt. to take further action on SIB proposal against publishers of illegal material?
68)                        Why SIT did not recommend further action on SIB proposal against publishers in its closure report?
69)                        Did SIT want to provide these publishers immunity from prosecution?
70)                        Why SIT did not record the statement of the Chief Election Commissioner, J.M.Lyngdoh and other Commissioners to make an impartial judgment on the claims of accused like the Chief Secretary Subbarao about their truthful presentation before CEC?
71)                        Why did SIT accept as proper the accusation of ACS AN that RBS had contradicted the Chief Secretary in the meeting convened by CEC on 09 August 2002? Should officers be like parrots of his senior officers or stick to truth in their presentations to constitutional bodies like CEC? Did not          SIT realize that senior officers like ACS AN wanted everybody to support the policy of Govt., irrespective of its legal and ethical impropriety?
72)                        How could SIT exonerate all officers who gave misleading reports to CEC, by ignoring CEC order Dated-16 August, 2002 and without getting the version of CEC officials in this matter?
73)                        Why SIT did not find any obvious sequential pattern in the persuasion, cajoling, tutoring and intimidation by number of officers (ADGP Deepak Swaroop, ADGP Mahapatra, Under Secretary Dinesh Kapadia, Home secretary G.C. Murmu, Govt.Pleader Arvind Pandia) of RBS to speak in favor of Government in his cross examination before JNC on 31 August, 2004?
74)                          What was the logic in SIT treating action of each of these officers as unconnected, compartmentalized and isolated transactions and thereby justified these illegal acts?
75)                        Why SIT did not make efforts to thoroughly analyze text of tutoring imposed on RBS and fail to take cognizance of ingredients of crimes in the whole episode?
76)                        Why SIT did not record the statement of ACS AN, in the light of the claim of Home Secretary G.C. Murmu to RBS about his calling ACS AN for briefing?
77)                        How did SIT accept the statement of Principle Secretary Home K.C. Kapoor that RBS had filed his second affidavit on his own and not on written orders by DGP, when copies of such orders from DGP A.K.Bhargava were submitted to SIT by RBS?
78)                        How SIT had declared that recording of interaction with Murmu was “clandestine,” when the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Ahmedabad judged this act to be legal in its judgment quashing charge sheet issued against RBS by State Govt.?
79)                        How could SIT ignore voluminous incriminating evidence against accused presented by RBS in his first and second affidavits (15 July 2002 and 06 October 2004 respectively), in his submission to CEC on 09 August, 2002 and during his cross-examination by JNC on 31 August, 2004 and make a baseless assessment that RBS had deposed against accused only after his super session in Feb, 2005?
80)                        Is it not the professional duty of SIT to deeply probe into each nugget of evidence presented by RBS in his nine affidavits and verify their truthfulness than rejecting them on grounds of technicality?
81)                        Why SIT had failed to notice that RBS did not make entries against the CM and Senior Officers about their intimidating him falsely, though he could have done so, had he been fabricating evidence against accused persons in his Register? Similarly RBS did not reveal his transaction with DGP Chakravarti in the period before his tenure as ADGP (Int.) (27 Feb,2002 to 08 April 2002) in his first to third affidavits till State Govt. made K. Chakravarti a witness in nine point charge sheet served on him. Why SIT had failed to notice this fact?
82)                        Why SIT had failed to notice that RBS had disclosed incriminating data on the controversial Central IB Joint Director Rajendrakumar (media reported that he was part of conspiracy to kill many innocent Muslims in fake encounters along with Gujarat Police) only after Rajendrakumar had volunteered to become a witness to prove charges against RBS? He is figuring as a witness in the charge sheet served on RBS by State Govt.
83)                        Why SIT had ignored the fact that revealing incriminating but truthful data about K.Charkravarti and Rajendrakumar was required for building a defense for RBS against charge sheet issued to him and this requirement had prompted RBS to file his fourth affidavit to JNC? In the light of these facts why SIT had failed to notice that RBS did not collect evidence against accused with any unholy objective and facts were revealed by him as per requirements of a developing situation?
84)                        How SIT had deemed that RBS had kept evidence about misdeeds of the accused with bad intention when no point of evidence presented by RBS was declared false by the State Govt., JNC, SIT, Justice Banarjee Commission or any other judicial or investigating body so far?
85)                        Why SIT had failed to notice that RBS had classified his first affidavit (15 July, 2002) as secret and requested JNC to treat the whole affidavit as “confidential and privileged documents”?
86)                        How could SIT blame RBS for “embarrassing the State Govt.” by presenting incriminating evidence when JNC had declassified his first affidavit and released it to media, which had projected the adverse information about the accused in the affidavit prominently?           
87)                        Why SIT is getting irritated and allergic whenever any witness presents evidence damaging to the interests of accused?
88)                        Why SIT did not question DGP A.K. Bhargava for violating his own orders for getting second affidavit of his predecessor K.Charkravarti filed before JNC? (DGP Bhargava had ordered all serving officers to get second affidavits filed from all those who filed first affidavit)
89)                        Why SIT did not question the Chief Secretary G. Subbarao for not filing any affidavit to JNC, though the Chief Secretary was the only bridge between political and administrative bureaucracy?
90)                        Why SIT did not examine relevant police records maintained as per SOP to find out the truth on allegation of bias against riot victims betrayed by police officers?
91)                        Why SIT did not examine the progress in investigation of 2000 odd cases reinvestigated by Gujarat police on the orders of the Apex Court since 2005?
92)                        Why SIT did not suggest any action against those responsible for entrusting dead bodies of Godhra train fire victims to VHP leaders?
93)                        Why SIT did not initiate any action on suggestion letters by witnesses like    
            RBS (letters Dated-03/08/2010, and 30/11/2010), Teesta Setalvad, Rahul Sharma, Sanjeev Bhatt etc.?
94)                      Why SIT did not seek explanation of the accused for showering favors to officers who acted as facilitators of communal riots and enablers of rioters? (This information is in sixth affidavit of RBS)
95)                        Why SIT did not get explanation from DGP K.Chakravarti and ACS AN regarding their failure to get SOP implemented by field officers particularly in areas of high voltage violence?
96)                        Why SIT did not question ACS AN about his admission of bias against Muslims practiced by many functionaries, to RBS? (This information is in ninth affidavit of RBS)
97)                        Why SIT did not question ADGP K.Nitynandam for his illegal orders to a Dysp. for not giving report to his superior officer-ADGP RBS?
98)                        Why SIT did not probe further on the revelations in the eighth and ninth affidavits of RBS, though SIT had fully utilized letters by RBS critical of Sanjeev Bhatt for discrediting evidence of Sanjeev Bhatt?
99)                      Why SIT did not record statement of RBS u/s 164 CRPC before a Magistrate even though he requested for such an action?
100)                  Why SIT did not question the CM Modi about his claim of not seeing SIB reports which had been shown to him by ACS AN for seeking orders about implementation of suggestions by SIB? (ACS AN in his recorded conversation claimed that he had shown SIB reports to CM)
101)                Did not SIT notice a serious mismatch between numerous adverse observations by the Apex Court about the criminal and culpable professional negligence of Gujarat State Administration and police in containing riots and investigation of riot cases, in contrast to the arguments of SIT in the closure report exempting senior officers from Dysp. to Chief Secretary and all functionaries of political bureaucracy from any liability and accountability for 2002 Gujarat genocide?
102)                Why SIT did not take guidance from the strictures and observations against Gujarat State Administration by higher judiciary and conduct deep penetrating investigation to link the thrust of complaints by riot victims and road map of investigation drawn by the courts?


The reported unscrupulous manipulative mismanagement and misjudgment of evidence against main planners, organizers, ground level mobilizers, and facilitators/enablers of mass violence (except brigands who physically committed crimes in areas of intense violence- many of them were arrested and prosecuted by SIT) for saving them from the long arm of Law, is a dismal and lugubrious chapter in the history of investigation of communal riots in India. Dr. R.K. Raghavan became controversial in 1991 for his reported failure to enforce effective and fail-proof security as in charge police official in Sriperumbatore (Tamilnadu), where Rajeev Gandhi was assassinated. That crime allegedly was the consequence of his fatal unpardonable negligence whereas reportedly dark diligence exhibited by him and his team to anoint the authors of 2002 anti-minority pogrom with oil of purity and righteousness is agonizingly and  debilitatingly exhaustive for the Criminal Justice System, social cohesion and stability of our motherland. By sheltering and shielding law breakers responsible for 2002 Gujarat massacre related crimes, SIT had not only deviated from the foundational ideals of the Constitution of India but had also brazenly desecrated  core values enshrined in scriptures of great world religions.

Bhagavad Gita –Chapter-2/50
       
“buddhiyukto jahati ‘ha ubhe sukrta duskrte
tasmad yogaya yujyasva yogah karmasu kausalam”

‘The one fixed in equanimity of mind frees oneself in this life from vice and virtue alike; devote yourself to yoga; work done to perfection is verily yoga.’

Bible- PSALM (The Psalm of David-15,1and 2)

“Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle?
Who shall dwell in your holy hill?
He that walketh uprightly, and walketh righteousness, and speaketh truth in his heart



The Holy Quran-Surah-women (135)

“O ye who believe! Be ye staunch in justice, witnesses for Allah, even though it be against yourselves or (your) parents or (your) kindred, whether (the case be of) a rich man or a poor man, for Allah is nearer unto both (than ye are). So follow not passion lest ye lapse (from truth) and if ye lapse or fall away, then lo! Allah is ever informed of what ye do.”

Tirukkural of Saint Tiruvalluvar (first century A.D.)
Chapter-55-“On righteous sceptre-Kural No-541

“Strict enquiry, and impartial justice mark the rule of a just monarch”

Let us wait optimistically for the final verdict of the Apex Court on Jakia Jafri petition against the Chief Minister Narendra Modi and also the judgment of history in the long run.



R.B.SREEKUMAR 
FORMER DGP, GUJARAT
GANDHINAGAR
24th June 2013


Saturday, 22 June 2013

2013-06-22 Appeal to all by R B Sreekumar

APPEAL TO ALL BY R.B. SREEKUMAR

1.         For enfeebling the validity and credibility of evidence presented by me to Judicial & Investigating bodies and to denigrate my image, the publicity managers of the Chief Minister of Gujarat State, Shri Narendra Modi and the Sangh Parivar, are widely propagating many lies about the motive and time frame of submission of evidence by me against authors of 2002 anti-minority bloodbath.  A totally blatant falsehood spread about me is that I had brought out incriminating material against those responsible for  2002 carnage and subsequent subversion of  the Criminal Justice System (CJS) ONLY after my super-cession in promotion to the rank of Director General of Police (DGP) in February, 2005.  This contention is utterly baseless, false, malicious and misleading.

2.         The real truth in this matter is given below:-

3.         When targeted violence was started against the minorities in the afternoon of 27th February, 2002, I was working as Addl. DGP (ADGP) Armed Units (AU) – a post having no authority to intervene in policing functions relating to maintenance of public order.

4.         I was posted as, ADGP (Intelligence) – In-charge of the State Intelligence Bureau (SIB), on  09/04/2002.  Within a couple of days I had submitted reports, as per my charter of duties, under Rule-461 of the Gujarat Police Manual (GPM) Vol-III, to the  State Government and DGP about involvement of the Sangh Parivar supporters in riots,  manipulation of  CJS to deny, derail and delay justice delivery to riot victim survivors, plan of communal elements – both Hindu & Muslim – to indulge in violence and so on.

5.         A few illustrative cases of data in important reports sent by me about the then prevailing situation, containing analytical, preventive, prognostic advance real time intelligence are given below:
a)            On 24/04/2002, an elaborate assessment report delineating maladies in the CJS and deviant actions of Police Officers and other Government Officials like Public Prosecutors, impeding justice delivery to the riot-affected was sent to the State Government and DGP Shri K. Chakravarti with specific suggestions for initiating remedial measures (see Appendix-24 of my First Affidavit dated 15/07/2002).

b)         Another situation appraisal report was sent by me on 15/06/2002, to DGP & State Government, insisting upon implementing earlier suggested corrective measures immediately to curb the anti-minority posture of Government servants. (see Appendix-IV of my Second Affidavit dated 06/10/2004).

c)           A note captioned “Actionable Points” – listing out corrective measures to counter anti-minority approach of Police was submitted by me to Shri K.P.S. Gill, IPS, Former DGP Punjab, the then Advisor to CM Gujarat on 10/05/2002 (see Appendix-III of my Second Affidavit).  One suggestion about transfer of officers from Ahmedabad City in the Note was implemented and this action had accelerated the process of establishment of normalcy in Ahmedabad City.

d)        Numerous pin-pointed advance real time preventive intelligence reports about plans of Hindu-Muslim militant elements were provided to DGP and field officers (see para-8 of my Second Affidavit).

e)        Numerous proposals for initiating action against those circulating communally inciting literature and publishing similar media reports were sent to State Government through DGP for initiating action against them.  But the Government did nothing in this matter so far (see para-36 of my First Affidavit and Exhibits No.5635 & 5636 of my deposition before Justice Nanavati Commission (hear-in-after referred to as JNC) on 31/08/2004).

6.       On 15/07/2002, I submitted my First Affidavit to JNC in which I appended all important reports sent by me about anti-minority tactics of police officers and others, despite verbal instructions from superior officers for not including such reports in my Affidavit.

7.       On 09/08/2002, I made a presentation to the full bench of the Central Election Commission (CEC) chaired by Shri J.M. Lyngdoh, the Chief Election Commissioner.  I had disobeyed the illegal verbal instructions of higher officers to paint a picture of total normalcy in Gujarat State for misleading the CEC, so that, the Commission could order holding of early Assembly Election,  perhaps for capitalising on  the upswing of Hindu communal mobilisation, to obtain electoral dividends.  In fact, I had presented data about tension prevailing in 154 out of 182 Assembly Constituencies and related facts.  The CEC had accepted my version and acknowledged it in its order dated 16/08/2002 – para-20, 32, declaring that my presentation had falsified the information provided by the State Government (see Annexure-I to my Representation to the HE Governor of Gujarat on 09/12/2012, under the heading ‘Representation to other Authorities’).

8.       From 16/08/2002, the day of issuance of CEC order postponing Gujarat Assembly Election, the State Home Department intensified its move to victimise me by asking explanations and launching enquiries on trivial administrative matters, against me.  They are –
1) Seeking explanation on my “slackness”in supervision of SIB Control Room staff who sent a secret message through Fax to field officers (Control Room is manned by Head Constables),
2) Finding fault for my failure to report about an enquiry on an investigation of a spy case during my deputation posting with the Central IB, though officers are debarred from reporting such matters to the State Government as per Government of India, DPAR order No.5/21/52/AIS-III dated 04/12/1972,
3) Questioning my act of reporting to CP Ahmedabad, against the then Ahmedabad City Crime Branch DIG, Shri D.G. Vanjara, regarding his alleged planting of fire arms on Muslims on the Rath Yatra Day in July, 2002 and arresting them.  (see for details my Third Affidavit Annexure-Ç’& ‘D’)

9.       In September, 2002, during the Gaurav Yatra organised by BJP (to express pride and joy over mass killing of minorities!!!), the CM Shri Narendra Modi delivered speeches wounding feelings of Muslim community in Mehsana district.  I had sent a report to DGP and Government in this matter as per Government regulations about hate speeches on 12/09/2002.  I had cautioned the authorities in this report that the style of language used by the CM in his speeches would adversely affect the prevailing communal situation and vitiate the social ambience.  Meanwhile, The National Commission of Minorities (NCM) asked the State Government for providing the full text of CM speech with English translation and audio recording.  DGP then verbally asked me to report falsely that SIB was not having the relevant material on CM speech.  I had asked for written orders from DGP as his verbal orders were contrary to regulations in this matter.  On 13/09/2002, DGP had sent a vague written order indicating that ”we do not have to sent any report in this regard”.  Nevertheless I did not comply with these illegal written orders as these were in violation of circulars on handling of communal situation issued by Govt. of India,  Rules of GPM and booklet on containment of communalism by DGP K.V. Joseph.  So I despatched a detailed report about the relevant CM speech with audio cassettes and English translation to DGP and Government on 16/09/2002.  I was transferred to the post of ADGP (Police Reforms) – an assignment without any charter of duties on 17/09/2002 night by the Government.  My transfer was in violation of the State Government resolution dated 26/02/2002 fixing 03 years as minimum tenure of IPS officers in SIB and I had completed only five months and ten days in SIB at that point of time.

10.       In July, 2004, the State Government had enlarged the terms of reference to the JNS by bringing the role of the CM Gujarat, Ministers and Senior officers in the ambit of enquiry.  Soon DGP Shri A.K. Bhargava had issued written orders directing all Police officers who filed the First Affidavit to file Second Affidavit in relation to extended terms of reference to JNC.  However, in tune with the duplicity of the State Government, DGP verbally instructed all to ignore his written orders and avoid filing Affidavits.  But I had complied with DGP’s written orders and filed my Second Affidavit to JNC on 06/10/2004 in which I presented further evidence on the failure of the State Government in not taking remedial measures to correct the anti-riot victim approach of the functionaries in the CJS (see copies of such reports as Appendix-II, IV, V & VII of my Second Affidavit).

11.       In August, 2004, I was summoned by JNC for cross examining me on the data in my First Affidavit.  Soon senior Police officers, two officials from Home Department – Shri Dinesh Kapadia, Under Secretary and Shri G.C. Murmu, IAS, Home Secretary along with Shri Arvind Pandiya, Advocate representing Government in  JNC had persuaded,  cajoled, tutored and even intimidated me  for speaking in favour of the State Government during my cross examination by JNC on 31/08/2004(audio records of tutoring interaction is available).  However, I did not comply with the illegal directions by Home Department officials.  I provided addition information on undesirable and objectionable role of Government officials in the riots along with four documents as exhibits during my cross examination.

12.       Submission of my Second Affidavit and non-compliance of instructions by Home Department officials against providing information about culpable actions of Government servants during riots to JNC had further annoyed the State Government.  So the Home Department restarted an enquiry against me on the issue of reporting alleged illegal act of  planting illicit fire arms on Muslims in Ahmedabad City on Rath Yatra day in July, 2002 by DIG, D.G. Vanjara.  It is relevant to note that my report on this alleged deviant act of Vanjara is the only report against him in the Department at that juncture.  Perhaps, had State Government taken notice of my report against Vanjara and taken action against him he would not have dared to indulge in the misadventure of staging fake encounter killings from October, 2002 to the time of his arrest in April, 2007.  Considering his extra-hierarchal accessibility to and rapport with senior leaders in the political bureaucracy in the State Government even his senior officers avoided reporting against him and had always turned a Nelson’s eye to his alleged misconduct and illegal deeds.  So my act of sending a report against Vanjara was deemed as “misconduct” by the State Government, though he was two ranks junior to me and Government restarted an enquiry against me.

13.       I had submitted a detailed reply, on 30th November, 2004, to memo issued to me by  the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Shri K.C. Kapoor, informing him that DGP had adjudged my act of sending a report against Vanjara as an action,” done in good faith as part of routine duties”.  I also added that Government was victimizing me as I did not comply with illegal instructions regarding submission of Second Affidavit and deposition before JNC.  I further submitted that if the State Government continued to persecute me I would be constrained to bring more information about illegal verbal orders given to me and evidence of tutoring and intimidation imposed on me by State Government Home Department officials.

14.       The failure of the State Government to take remedial measures suggested in my situation reports had only resulted in the riot victims approaching the Apex Court for ordering corrective action to improve the maladies in CJS of Gujarat State.  The Apex Court had passed serious strictures against the State Government since 2004 and issued orders for –
            1) Transfer of trial of two cases to Maharashtra State.
            2) Investigation of one mass rape case (Bilkis Bano case) by CBI
            3) Re-investigation of 2000 odd cases closed by Gujarat Police
4) Entrusting investigation of nine major carnage cases to the Special Investigation Team (SIT) chaired by Dr. R.K. Raghavan, Former CBI Director.
5) Investigation of two fake encounter cases by CBI
6) Appointment of a Specail Task Force (STF), headed by Justice Bedi to probe into 17 alleged fake encounters cases in Gujarat from October, 2002 to February 2007.

15.       In the judgement of Naroda Patia massacre case (96 killed), the Special Court (Judge Dr. Jyotsna Yagnik) severely criticized Gujarat Police for their anti-minority bias, faulty investigation and acts of favouritism towards Hindu accused persons.  Such professional lapses would not have damaged the standard and quality of investigation of riot cases had the State Government implemented corrective measures proposed in my reports to the Government, submitted from April to August, 2002.

16.       The State government had not so far questioned the veracity of material in my Nine Affidavits – four submitted while I was in service and five after my retirement in February, 2007.

17.       A study of above narrated facts should convince anybody that the false propaganda against me by the Sangh Pariwar that I had come out against Modi Government’s culpable role in riots and subversion of CJS only after my supersession in promotion to the rank of DGP is totally false, baseless and fraudulently malevolent and was fabricated to damage my image and credibility.

18.       The purpose of filing my Third Affidavit to JNC on 09/04/2005, as explained in its forwarding letter, was to bring to the notice of JNC, the back ground and reason behind the State Governments unwarranted acts of victimisation inflicted on me.  I had expressed my apprehension about the ‘the possibility of the State Government initiating further tormenting action against me, in this Affidavit and requested the Commission to take suitable remedial action in this matter.  Unfortunately, JNC did not take any action to protect me, even though all witnesses providing truthful evidence to the Judicial Commission is protected from any criminal or civil proceedings under section 6 of the Commission of Enquiry Act.

19.       True to my apprehension the State Government had served me 9 point charge sheet in September, 2005 for dismissing me from service.  I brought this to the notice of JNC with my explanation through my Fourth Affidavit.

20.       Nevertheless, I could win my case against supersession in a prolonged legal battle up to the Apex Court, though I could get my regular pension and retirement benefits only after 18 months of my retirement.  The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Ahmedabad had quashed the charge sheet served on me and the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat had refused to impose stay orders on CAT judgement. 

21.       Thus, it may be seen that my supersession in February, 2005 was an outcome of my refusal to comply with illegal verbal orders of the State Government authority and submission of a lot of incriminating evidence about  the culpable role of functionaries in Modi Government in the riots and subversion of CJS, to Judicial bodies.  Moreover, information and documents provided in my all four affidavits, submitted while I was in service was pertaining to a period from February, 2002 to September, 2002 and I was bypassed in promotion in February, 2005 only.

22.       In the career of an IPS officer, the most decisive post of public order maintenance is the duty of Superintendent of Police (SP) of a district.  I had served as SP   in seven districts of Gujarat – Valsad, Amreli, Bhavnagar, Ahmedabad City, Mehsana, Kheda and Kutch.  No prolonged disruption of public order or communal strife was reported during my tenure in these districts.  Numerous commendation letters were received from authorities for my appreciable performance and I was also decorated with two President’s Police Medals.

23.       In Kutch district, certain persons arrested for preventing escalation of communal disturbance, belonging to Hindus and Muslims, in 1986, had filed false cases against me and other police officers.  However, the Court had discharged me and others following the due process of law in 2007.     During my tenure in Kutch as SP, in a special drive 118 illegal Pakistani settlers were detected and deported.  Five espionage cases were also made out in collaboration with Central IB and four of these cases were convicted.  The then Director Intelligence Bureau, Shri H.A. Barari, (later Governor Haryana) had liberally rewarded Gujarat Police for this remarkable work and had taken me on deputation to IB from 1987 to 2000.

24.       In January, 2001, I was deputed by the then  Gujarat Chief Minister Shri Keshubhai Patel to supervise police work relating to relief and rescue operations, following a major earthquake on 26/01/2001 in Kutch district.  Later the CM Shri Narendra Modi, inducted me in December, 2001 as a member in a committee headed by Shri R.C. Mehta, Former Special Director IB, to make proposals for revamping the State Intelligence Branch.  So it is clear that I became a persona non grata to Modi Government only after I send reports against involvement of Government officials and Sangh Parivar supporters in the riots, being devoted to my oath of allegiance to the letter and spirit of the Constitution of India.

25.       May I request those engaged in vilification campaigns against me, by spreading vicious rumours, to appreciate voluminous evidence against the planners, perpetrators and facilitators of 2002 anti-minority mass violence and on subsequent subversion CJS, marshalled by me in my Nine Affidavits to JNC (663 pages) and in numerous other reports to SIT, in the perspective of the Rule of Law, rectitude and truthfulness and acted as per the stipulations of the Article-51A of the Constitution of India.

26.       The Father of the Nation – Mahatma Gandhi, started his spiritual odyssey on the maxim “God is Truth” and had progressively later realised that “Truth is God”. Speak Truth and move righteously-Satyam vada, Dharmam chara. (Upanishad)