Friday, 14 June 2013

2012-12-09 Letter to Governor of Gujarat

R.B.Sreekumar, I.P.S, (Retd),
Former DGP.  Gujarat.
Plot №-193,
Phone: 079-23247876
M: 9428016117
Tel:- 079-23247876
Mob:- 09428016117
Date: 9th December 2012.

            Subject:          A representation in the public interests for initiation of departmental action against those responsible for culpable negligence in maintenance of public order and investigation of genocidal crimes.

Respected Madam,
I belong to 1971 batch of India Police Service (I.P.S,), Gujarat State Cadre.  I had retired from service on 28th February 2007.
2.         I had submitted nine Affidavits to the Justice Nanavati Commission (herein after mentioned as ‘the Commission’), probing into the protracted communal riots in Gujarat State in the year 2002- four Affidavits while I was in service and five, afterwards (total six hundred and sixty-three pages).  The evidence and documents in my Affidavits had provided indepth information on the culpable role of the Gujarat State bureaucracy   and police, including the Chief Minister Shri. Narendra Modi in (1) The planning and execution of anti-minority carnage in 2002, (2)  Manipulation and subversion of the Criminal Justice System (CJS) in the State to deny and  delay justice delivery to riot victim survivors, (3) Illegal acts and misconduct by State Home Department Officials and Government pleader to impede the flow of evidence to the Commission etc.
3.         In various litigations for justice by riot victim survivors, materials in my Affidavits have been comprehensively utilized to support and to strengthen their cases.  In the month of August 2002, the Central Election Commission (CEC) had rejected the State Assembly Election Schedule proposed by the State Government, basing on my presentation before CEC on 9/08/2002 about the then prevailing law and order situation.  Kindly see the copy of CEC order dated 16/08/2002, enclosed as Annexure -I for confirmation.
4.         During my tenure as ADGP (INT), as In-charge of the State Intelligence Branch (SIB) from 9/04/2002 to 18/09/2002, I had submitted several intelligence assessment reports to the State Home Department, DGP and the relevant jurisdictional police officers about law and order trends; quality and efficiency of service delivered to the riot victims; merit and potency of police action for preventing and containment of violence basing on advance, preventive real time intelligence; measures for correcting anti-Muslim bias of Government officials and remedying maladies in the CJS etc. The copies of these reports were appended in my first and second Affidavits submitted to the Commission on 15/07/2002, and 6/10/2004, respectively, in compliance with orders from DGP, Gujarat. (Four of these reports i.e. (1) dated 24/04/2002, (2) 15/06/2002, (3) 20/08/2002 and (4) 28/08/2002 are enclosed as Annexure-II, A, B, C and D.  Submission of such intelligence appraisal reports  were in tune with the directives in Rule 461 of Gujarat Police Manual, (GPM) Vol III, compilation of circulars captioned ‘Communal Peace’ and the booklet issued by DGP K V Joseph captioned ‘Instructions to deal with communal riots – strategy and approach’, in 1997.
5.         Strangely the State Government and DGP did not initiate any purposeful and effective action towards actualization of my suggested remedial measures to counter the subversion of CJS to tamper with justice delivery to riot victims.  But, the higher authorities also did not challenge or questioned the contents of my reports, nor I was asked to furnish any additional data.  However, the Chief Minister Narendra Modi had verbally questioned the basis of my assessment (See entry dated 7/05/2002 in my Register, copy of which was attached as Annexure E of my Third Affidavit).  Responding to my presentation, based on facts, in support of contention of my report, dated 24/04/2002, the CM had simply disagreed with me.  But, he neither did issue any written directive on my assessment asking for reversing and reworking my appraisal of the situation and recommendations, nor he asked for deeper probe, nor he did do anything to implement my suggestions to correct maladies in the CJS.  Shree Ashok Narayan, IAS, (1966 batch), ACS Home Department had admitted to me in the month of August 2004 that Government did not act upon my intelligence reports and that these were put up to the Chief Minister.  (See my 9th Affidavit to the Commission dated 12th January 2012- Audio tape of the conversation is available).  Home Department Officials and DGPs from April 2004 to 2007 are liable for this default.
6.         The State Government also did not take action on many proposals sent by SIB against media, publishers and distributors of materials containing ingredients of communal incitement and aggravation of hatred between communities.  The details and the copies of these proposals were included in my First and Second Affidavits and in my deposition to the Commission on 31/08/2004 in a cross-examination.  Officers In-charge of Home Department Shree Ashok Narayan, KC Kapoor, IAS (1973), and Shree Balvantsinh IAS (1975) and Secretary Legal Department Shrimati Bela Trivedi and her successors are responsible for this dereliction of duty.
7.         Since the subversion of  the CJS resulted in near – total denial of justice to riot victims and manipulative techniques were adopted by police and prosecution, at the ground level, many litigations were filed by aggrieved parties, NGOs, NHRC etc. in the Hon. Gujarat High Court and Apex Court.  Consequently, being aware of the undesirable conditions in Gujarat, the Apex Court had severely criticized the State Administration in the judgement of Criminal Appeal №-446-449, 2004 (Zahira Shaikh V/s. State of Gujarat) thus - “If one cursorily glances through the records of the case, one gets a feeling that the justice delivery system was being taken for a ride and literally allowed to be abused, misused and mutilated by subterfuge.  The investigation appears to be perfunctory and anything but impartial without any definite objective of finding out the truth and bringing to book those who were responsible for the crime.  Those who are responsible for protecting life and properties and ensuring that investigation is fair and proper seem to have shown no real anxiety.  Large number of people had lost their lives.  Whether the accused persons were really assailants or not could have been established by fair and impartial investigation.  The modern day “Neros” were looking elsewhere when Best Bakery and innocent children and women were burning, and were probably deliberating how the perpetrators of the crime can be saved or protected.  Law and Justice became flies in the hands of these “wanton boys.”  When fences start to swallow the crops, no scope will be left for survival of law and order or truth and justice.  Public order as well as public interest becomes martyrs and monuments.”  The Honourable Supreme Court also concluded that there was “Ample evidence on record, glaringly demonstrating subversion of justice delivery system with no congeal or conducive atmosphere still prevailing”, i.e. in April 2004.
8.         It is axiomatic that had the State Home Department and DGP implemented my pinpointed suggestions to contain and control the sabotage of the CJS against the riot victims, through the relevant Govt. functionaries, the Apex Court would not have been prompted to make the above strictures against the State Administration.
9.         My assessment about criminal negligence by the State Government Officials was further reiterated by the Apex Court in its following decisions,  a) Transfer of investigation of Bilkis Banu mass rape case to CBI,  b) Transfer of trial of 2 cases (Bilkis Banu and Best Bakery) to Maharashtra, c) Ordering reopening and reinvestigation of 2000 odd closed riot related cases (closed by the  State Police for favouring the accused drawn from the Sangh Parivar).  (Even statutory notice was also not issued to the complainants who filed the FIRs, before closing the cases.  This was an unprecedented move by the Supreme Court, for the first time in the judicial history of India),    d) Appointment of SIT to reinvestigate major genocide cases and to probe Mrs. Jafri’s complaint and e) Gujarat High Court in February 2012, had assailed the State Government for its failure to protect historical monuments and religious centres of Muslim community during riots.  Significantly, Special Courts hearing cases investigated by the SIT, headed by Dr. R. K. Raghavan, reportedly, had passed strictures against unprofessional investigation of riot cases by Gujarat police.  The Court had particularly censored one Police Inspector Patel, who investigated Dipda Darwaza case of Mahesana District.  In all these judicial directions, the higher judiciary made critical observations against the State Government functionaries.
10.       Even reports by NHRC, National Minority Commission etc. had also echoed my assessment about the subversion of the CJS and failure of Government to take remedial measures.
11.       The most ghastly massacre (96 people killed and 125 injured) during the 2002 anti-minority genocide was enacted in Naroda Patia locality of Ahmedabad city.  The judgement on this man made tragedy pronounced by Judge Dr.Jyotsna Yagnik, the Special Court Judge on 31 August 2012 has many unprecedently energising aspects for the CJS in the judicial history of India.  Criminology predicates about the imperative convergence and collaboration of five category of criminals for the devilish execution of mass crimes.  They are (1) Planners, (2) Organisers, (3) Ground level mobilisers, (4) Perpetrators or foot soldiers (those who inflicted physical violence literally), and (5) Facilitators or enablers.  In this case, the Court had punished besides the executers of violence, an organiser (former State Minister) and ground level mobiliser (Bhajrang Dal / Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader).  The Court had also confirmed, (1) The premeditated conspiracy, (2) Sequential and steady preparatory efforts, (3) Actions towards mobilization of violent mobs, (4) Conspicuous collaborative acts by police and so on.
12.       Naroda Patia Judgement had made many severe critical comments on the jurisdictional police officers for their reprehensible acts like (1) Not containing anti-Muslim blood bath which continued for ten hours from morning 9.  AM onwards, on the Vishwa Hindu Parishad sponsored Bandh on 28/02/2002, (2) Massacre of 58 persons in curfew bound area as police allowed mobs to move freely in public places during curfew, (3) Not registering complaints /FIRs as narrated by the riot victims, (4) Avoiding the names of prominent Hindu leaders in the FIRs, (5) Not arresting accused figuring in FIRs, (6) Not recovering property looted by the accused, (7) Failure of hierarchical senior police officers of Gujarat police to effectively supervise the investigation of cases of Naroda Patia violence etc.
13.       Significantly, the anti-Minority bias of Gujarat police was graphically brought to the notice of State Government and the DGP in my reports as Head of SIB since 9/04/2002.  In my report captioned ‘An Analytical Note on Current Communal Scenario in Ahmedabad city, dated 24/04/2002’ (Annexure-II A enclosed.) after delineating trends of anti-Muslim bias of police, I had suggested pinpointed remedial measures to counter manipulative actions by police officers, particularly the Investigating Officers (IOs) to favour accused in the riot cases.  Since the Government did not take any follow up of action on my report (nor did the Government question contents of my report) I had submitted another assessment report on 15/06/2002 insisting upon implementation of suggested curative measures for achieving total normalcy on the communal front in the State.
14.       Still the State Home Department and DGP did not do anything for implementing my suggestions.  This irresponsible, illegal and anti-Minority posture of Government officials was criticized by CEC in its order dated 16/08/2002 paras 16, 20, 30, 31 (iv), 32 and 59.  No departmental action or imposing of even minor punishment was taken against erring Officials.  Perhaps they must have been acting as per the hidden anti-minority agenda of the Political leadership in the State Government.
15.       In my report dated 24/04/2002 , Para III Sub-para 1 to 8 I had indicated about “Muslim Community developing a severe grudge against CJS which they perceive to be heavily biased against Muslims, judging from the line of action taken by the Investigating officers on their complaints and other segments of CJS”.  Reasons for the loss of faith are (a) Police officers are being not fair in recording the complaints and the complainants are pressurised (1) from giving complaints, (2) for minimisation of the ingredients of offences, (3) for avoiding the naming of specific persons ; (b) Naming of the accused in the FIRs has greater evidential value as against the witnesses giving names; (c) Many acts of violence, which have taken place as different transactions are clubbed together and registered as a single FIR, adversely affecting the reliability and evidential value of the complaint and providing loopholes to the accused during the Prosecution; (d) Merger of many complaints into one FIR would affect the process of Insurance claims; (e) Avoidance of arrest of Hindu leaders even if their names figure in the FIR of major offences, (f) Whenever Hindu accused are arrested no effort is made to take them on remand for recovery of property looted, weapons of offence or for other investigation purposes; (g) The accused from Hindu Community arrested for non bailable offences are immediately got released , on account of partisan   stand  taken by the Public Prosecutors and lack of keenness of the police; (h) reduction in the deterrent effect of the arrest of Hindu accused due to soft attitude of police, on other lumpen elements among Hindu communalists; (i) VHP and Bhajrang Dal activists extorting protection money from merchants; (j) VHP men intimidating merchants and general public from employing Muslims on any vocation or job; (k) Circulation of communally inciting pamphlets by VHP; (l) Prevalence of an atmosphere of permissiveness in Ahmedabad city due to inability of city police to contain and control violence; (m) Senior police officers complaining about officers at the decisive rung of the hierarchical order viz  Inspectors In-charge of police stations ignoring the specific instructions from official hierarchy on account of their getting direct verbal instructions from the senior political leaders of the Ruling Party  who ensure their placement and continuance in their choicest executive posts , at the cost of the spirit and letter of the laws of the land etc.
16. Damage done to the quality of investigation and dispensation of justice to riot victims due to above illegal and unprofessional stance of police was severely criticized by the court in Naroda Patia judgment. This had confirmed the fact that the Home department and DGP did not take follow up action on my intelligence assessment reports. Courts confirming about prevalence of serious maladies indicated by me (in the investigation of cases by police against the Hindu accused persons) in Naroda Patia cases judgment may be seen in pages 269, 270, 273, 274, 275, 289, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 314, 372, 489, 491, 495, 503, 504, 510, 511, 513, 515, 1497, 1501, 509, 1547 and 1564.
17. In page 487, para c – 6, the Court observed “while people were flocking the streets (as curfew was not deliberately enforced) leaving their households inside, inspector Shri. K. K. Mysorewala has reported to the Control Room (Ahmedabad city) that “everything is ok” (Khariat hain – There is peace and happiness in Patia area) it was like “when Rome was burning, Nero was playing fiddle”.
18. In page 1497, the Court said “the court has not held the previous investigation to be such on which implicit reliance can be placed, more particularly for not recording true statements of the victims. At times, attempts have been confirmed to have been made to see to it that presence and participation of certain VIP accused does not come on record. Not only that, but attempts have been made to project entire communal riots to have been created because of occurrence of rash and negligent driving of TATA 407 , free fight took place at the site between Hindus and Muslims and murder of Ranjit Singh etc.”
19. In page 1564, the Court had concluded “it seems that all  previous investigators from Gujarat police were lacking sensitivity, were not entirely fair to the process, were seemed to be overpowered by someone, were aimed to protect some person, were not quality conscious, but were harping upon the quantity, at times were doing haphazard investigations, over distribution of work to many assignee officers has de-shaped the investigation, they were “soft to loss of property but hard to vibrant human hearts”, they were lacking necessary care and seriousness which such sensitive cases deserve”.
20. The blatant unprofessionalism and unwarranted prejudice practiced by series of Investigating Officers (IO) – all from Gujarat police - against riot victims from Muslim community, had palpably tacit and obvious support from senior supervisory officers in the ranks of Dy. SP to Commissioner of Police in Ahmedabad city. These linear supervisory officers had abdicated their statutory responsibility and authority vested on them under sections 36, 129, 131, 144 and 154 of CRPC and duties assigned to them under the provisions of the Indian Police Act 1861, the Bombay Police Act, GPM vol – III Rule No. 22 to 30, 33, 34, 36, 113, 114, 134, 135 and 240 and numerous DGP circulars. The Commissioners of Police in Ahmedabad city during the relevant period from 27-02-2002 to June 2008 – Shri P. C. Pandey IPS – 1970, and Shri. K. R. Kaushik – IPS – 1972 and their junior officers in the line of command were responsible for unprofessional supervision of the IOs of 2002 riot crimes like Naroda Patia carnage and others. They had committed serious dereliction of duties and misconduct violating All India Service (AIS) conduct rules, rule-3 particularly, and are liable to be dealt with through departmental action. The state service officers are chargeable for misconduct and slack supervision of cases under Gujarat Civil Service Rules (GCSR).
21. The State Administration, particularly functionaries from Chief Secretary downwards are duty bound to take a serious and responsible view on any observation by the Courts of all levels and thereafter initiate follow up action in the form of departmental action against delinquent officers, besides taking corrective measures in tune with courts’ views. Rule 271 and 272 of GPM vol-III had laid down action to be taken after scrutiny of judgments. Unfortunately, Gujarat State authorities did not take any action against any Govt. functionary so far, in pursuance to critical remarks in judgments narrated in para-9 of this representation. These judgments uncover a series of conscious, calculated and purposeful dereliction of duties and misconduct. The misdemeanor by officers were in flagrant violation of the supervisory and regulatory architecture designed in GPM vol-III, rule 24, 134, 135 and 240. Comments against police in Naroda Patia judgment dated 31st August 2012 were also ignored by the Govt. The officers in charge of Home, Legal Department, General Administration Dept. (GAD) and DGP from the time of judgments indicting the State Govt. officers in the Best Bakery case (Zahira Sheik vs State of Gujarat) in 2004 by the Apex Court are liable for this major default intentionally committed for saving officers whose deviant ways and action had evoked strictures from various Courts.
22. The authors of 2002 rots in Gujarat and a set of armchair academicians are circulating a theory that the riots and subsequent subversion of the CJS were due to system failure in which the Govt. Servants were helpless and could not play any decisive assertive role due to legal, administrative and logistic constraints. The riots have been portrayed as a spontaneous outburst of justifiable resentment of Hindus against the community responsible for the Godhra train fire incident killing 59 Ram Bhaktas (devotees of Lord Rama). Such a propaganda strategy is fine tuned to immunize those officers from the Executive Magistracy and police from any accountability as their acts of numerous omissions and commissions (as narrated in many SIB reports and several judicial pronouncements), had only promoted mass anti-Muslim violence, enabling the planners and executors to carry out their anti-national agenda.
23. Significantly throughout Gujarat those who succeeded to maintain law and order and upheld the Rule of Law had acted according to the imperative efficacious strategy and the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) elaborated with sequential drills and exercises in CRPC, Bombay Police Act, GPM vol-III chapter-2, secret circulars captioned “Communal Peace”, Govt. directives on implementation of Justice Reddy (1969 riots) and Justice Dave (1985 riots) recommendations on duties of Police and Executive Magistracy during riots, pinpointed instructions in DGP Shri. K. V. Josephs’ order “Instructions to deal with communal riots (strategy and approach) dated 19-11-1997, periodically revised area specific Communal Riot Schemes etc.
24. It is noticed that wide spread mass violence against Muslims were noticed only in those areas where jurisdictional officers from police and Executive Magistracy had intentionally avoided adherence to above listed SOP, and acted in tune with the alleged covert scheme of political leadership in the State Govt., for achieving Hindu communal mobilization to get electoral dividends. This contention can be illustrated with facts and statistics of riot violence.

25. Among 26 police districts and four (4) Commissionerates, in eleven (11) Districts, namely, 1) Amreli, 2) Narmada, 3) Ahwa-Dang, 4) Jamnagar, 5) Navasari, 6) Porbandar, 7) Surat Rural, 8) Valsad, 9) Surendra Nagar, 10) Rajkot Rural and 11) Kutch-Bhuj, there was no death due to riots, whereas the casualties were negligible (lesser than toll in the previous communal violence in these places) in five (5) Districts and in the Commissionerates of Surat and Rajkot cities. The five (6) Districts, are 1) Bharuch (two deaths due to violence), 2) Junagadh (two), 3) Patan (four), 4) Vadodara Rural (four), 5) Bhavnagar (two) and 6) Gandhinagar (four) and in the Commissionerate of Rajkot city (4 deaths due to violence).

26. The position of Surat city violence statistics is quite unique. The city, the second populous city in Gujarat, did report only seven (7) deaths due to violence though, in previous communal disturbances, particularly in the 1992 post-Babri Masjid demolition violence, hundreds of citizens were killed. The commendable performance of Surat City Police Commissioner (Shri. V. K. Gupta – IPS 1977) and his team is in contrast to 326 killings in Ahmedabad city and thirty two (32) in Vadodara city in mass violence.

27. It is relevant to note that unlike in areas of major genocidal violent incidents (Naroda Patia and Gulbarg society in Ahmedabad city, Sardarpura in Mehsana district, Kidiad in Sabarkhanta district, Ode village in Anand district, Best Bakery located in Vadodara city) wherein more Muslims were killed in police firing, in Surat city where only seven (7) people died in riots, while  ten (10) Hindus and one (1) Muslim offenders were injured, in police action. In most of the areas of high voltage anti-minority violence in police action, overwhelmingly higher number of Muslims were killed. Here is a paradoxical and inexplicably strange phenomena of about sixty percent (60%) of death in police firing and seventy seven percent (77%) of casualties of mob-violence being drawn from the Muslim community. Does not this fact pose a serious question mark on the professional integrity and the commitment to the Rule of Law of the officers of Police and Executive Magistracy, in those notorious riot affected areas? It is pertinent that in areas of less violence also there were many communally sensitive and volatile localities inhabited by sizeable number of highly communally charged people. [The above data on violence is taken from base papers of Appendix (v) of my Second Affidavit to the Commission dated 06-10-2004 (No. 9129/04)]
28. The degree of violence from 27-02-2002 to 07-08-2002 in the descending order of intensity is as follows: i) Ahmedabad City (326 death in riot), ii) Godhra district (93), iii) Western Railway (64), iv) Mehsana (61), v) Vadodara city (36), vi) Ahmedabad Rural District (33), vii) Sabarkantha (32), viii) Kheda (31), ix) Dahod (24), x) Banaskhanta (20) and xi) Anand (15). Rangewise position of eight ranges is as follows: i) Vadodara range (125), ii) Gandhinagar (97), iii) Ahmedabad Rural (79), iv) Western Railway (64), v) Border (24), Junagadh (4), No death in Surat and Rajkot ranges. (These casualty figures do not include those died in police firing and missing persons). It is remarkable that Surat city had only seven (7) death and Rajkot city four (4). In Surat city, the death in communal violence after Babri Masjid demolition was nearly 300. Moreover, in six other districts violence was negligible and death were below four. Highest number of Islamic buildings, symbols of Muslim culture from the medieval times (dargah, masjid etc) were destroyed in Ahmedabad range (181 institutions).
29. No in-house exercise, as to how officers (Commissioners of Police, Dist. Magistrate, Superintendent of Police)  in two cities and seventeen districts had succeeded to effectively maintain law and order even in traditional sensitive areas like Surat city and Veeraval (Junagadh district) and why in other eleven places, nine districts and two Commissionerates  rioters were given a fee hand – has not yet been done by the Govt. for fixing up responsibility for culpable negligence of not implementing SOP by relevant officers. It is notable that in many areas of low level violence in 2002 there were higher casualties during the post Babri Masjid demolition riots and earlier – were reported. In fact most of the officers who contained violence were harassed and four of them were transferred in the thick of riots despite, reportedly, DGP K Chakravarti’s objection. They were not posted back despite specific directions by CEC in its order dated 16-08-2002.
30. In this context departmental probe should be started against District Magistrates, SsP, CsP and police range officers of nine districts and two Commissionerates.
31. There are many specific instances of misconduct, display of inadequate integrity and devotion to duty (as per rule-3 of AIS (conduct) rules and corresponding provisions in GCSR for state government officials), which had aggravated the agony and material loss of riot victims and unethically benefited those responsible for 2002 communal blood bath. The competent authority had turned a Nelson’s Eye to those defaulters. These delinquencies include the following:
            a) Dead bodies of 54 persons (Hindus) killed in train fire incident were entrusted to private persons namely Shri. Jaideep patel and Shri. Hasmukh Patel – both VHP leaders, in violation of existing regulations particularly, rule 223 (10-b) of Gujarat Police Manual volume-III by Godhra district authorities. In case relatives of the deceased were not available, responsible police/ revenue officers could have taken charge of the dead bodies till their delivery to the next of kin or cremation. The act of handing over dead bodies to leaders of an organisation (VHP) which had given a call for bandh on 28-02-2002 against the Godhra train fire incident, and notorious for its anti-Muslim belligerency, with or without the shield of verbal orders from higher formations, displays indictable irresponsibility and misconduct. Godhra District Magistrate, Jayanti Ravi IAS (1991) and SP Godhra, Raju Bhargava IPS (1995) were liable for this.
            b) State Cabinet Ministers in-charge of urban housing, roads and buildings, Shri I K Jadeja and Health Minister Shri Ashok Bhatt had positioned themselves in DGP office (DGP chamber) and Control Room Ahmedabad city on the VHP’s sponsored bandh day on 28-02-2002 from fore-noon. Their unauthorized presence in offices of supervisory police officers were illegal, unethical, even under the verbal orders of the Chief Minister because these Ministers did not have the powers to interfere in the policing work being done by officers, who were statutorily empowered to maintain law and order. Their acts do amount to offences punishable under section 186, IPC – obstructing Govt. servants in the discharge of their duties. The question of evidence about these Ministers’ active intervention or meddling with police operations carried out from the operational HQ of DGP and CP Ahmedabad is not required to establish their culpability in this matter. The very act of remaining present in police offices without authority, agenda or role in police work would satisfy the ingredients of sec-186 IPC to proceed against them. DGP and CP Ahmedabad are responsible for this major dereliction of duty of permitting the unauthorized positioning of these Ministers in the operational centers of Gujarat police on the crucial bandh day. Further, as per the Rules of Business, only the H E The Governor of Gujarat has the authority to entrust the functions of Home Department to these Ministers. Nevertheless powers mandated by CRPC to police officers can never be provided to them even by HE Governor. It is relevant to note that on the fateful day of 28-02-2002, maximum number of people (Muslims) were killed in riots allegedly by marauding crowds of the Sangh Pariwar.
            c (i) As per instructions issued by the General Adminsitration Department, AIS (conduct rules) and GCSR, Govt. servants are duty bound to extend all assistance to Govt. appointed Commissions of enquiry. As per the first terms of reference to the Justice Nanavati Commission dated 06th March 2002 and the second one dated 20th July 2004, the relevant Govt. servants should have submitted their Affidavits to the Commission. The Notifications by the Commission had also called for relevant materials in the form of Affidavits from all concerned. DGP Shri. K. Chakravarti as per his orders dated 18th June 2002 and DGP Shri. A. K. Bharghava as per his orders dated 16th September 2004 and 21st September 2004 directed all officers to file Affidavits to the Commission.

c (ii) Numerous officers, particularly those in-charge of areas affected by ghastly violence, DMs and SsP and CsP (two Commissionerates and nine districts) reportedly did not file Affidavits covering first and second terms of reference by the Govt. to the Commission. Strangely it is reported that no State Govt. officer had filed Affidavits regarding terms of reference dated 20th July 2004 which had tasked the Commission to probe into “the role and conduct of the Chief Minister, other Ministers, police officers etc”. They had chosen the safe path of denying the Commission the germane inputs and data on riots. Moreover sec-6 of the Commission of enquiry act-1952, provides blanket protection to all witnesses from any civil or criminal proceedings based on the statements made by them before the Commission.
c (iii) The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Ahmedabad had quashed nine charges imposed on me by the State Govt., for my dismissal from service, relating to my submission to the Commission, in its judgment dated 28th September 2007. The Hon’ High Court of Gujarat had refused to issue stay orders on the CAT judgment in favor of me. Similar favorable orders were issued to Rahul Sharma IPS (1992), by CAT on similar charges imposed on him by the Govt.
c (iv) The most un-paradonable delinquency, by failing to provide pertinent information to the Commission was committed by the Chief Secretaries Smt. Swaran Kant Verma IAS (1965) and Shri. G. Subbarao IAS (1965). It is a self evident truth that the Chief Secretary as the head of bureaucracy, including police, is the only bridge linking the state administration with political leadership in the Govt. How could the Commission finalise its report about the role of the CM and Ministers (as per the terms of reference), without information from the Chief Secretary, the only bureaucrat attending the State Cabinet meetings and also from those in-charge of legal department and departments of Home, Health, Transport, Revenue, Panchayat etc. While the Home Department is directly responsible for policing, legal department is accountable for appointment of public prosecutors, giving legal opinion for proposals in initiating actions against media and publishers of objectionable materials etc. and Health, Transport, Revenue, Panchayat depts. are tasked to do the needful for relief, reconciliation, rehabilitation and resettlement in post riot situation (the standard of relief and rehabilitation is part of Terms of Reference dated 20th July 2004 to the Commission). Reportedly, relevant officers in-charge of these depts. did not file Affidavits to the Commission, particularly on Terms of Reference dated 20-07-2004. All of these officers are delinquents in this matter.
            d) No initiative appears to have been taken by the State Govt. to scrutinize the judgment on the riot cases from the level of Sessions Court to the Apex Court. This is in violation of general instructions of GAD and rule-271 and 272 of GPM vol-III. Secretaries in-charge of Legal, Home and GAD depts. and DGP and his jurisdictional junior officers, who were responsible for investigation of riot related cases, about which strictures were passed should be held responsible for this grave omission which could have long term impact on the interface between the Judiciary and the Executive wings of the Govt. Moreover a casual, cynical and unresponsive approach to the Court’s adverse observations about Govt. functions would affect the quality of professionalism of police and standard of justice delivery to the victims of crimes, besides the pitfall of police officers becoming apathetic to Court’s remarks. The State Govt. functionaries should have become agile and pro-active since the days of the Apex Court judgment in Best Bakery case (Zahira Sheik vs State of Gujarat) in April 2004 about observations by the Court. In this judgment the Court had referred to the Gujarat State officials as the “Modern Day Neros”
            e) The state Govt. did not bring to the notice of organizers of bandh on 28th Feb 2002 and law enforcers, the directives of a judgment by the Hon’ High Court of Kerala banning observance of bandh. Such an action would have had some effect on potential bandh supporters and must have put the morale of officers keen on maintenance of public order, on the upswing. The Chief Sec.Smt. Swaran Kant Verma, Shri. Ashok Narayan, Sec – Legal Dept, DGP Shri. K. Chakravarti were liable for this default. No effort was reportedly taken by these officers to counter the ill-effects of the speech by the Chief Minister Shri. Narendra Modi characterizing the riots as a mere operation of Newton’s Laws of Motion.
            f) Advocates with clear pro-Sangh Parivar leanings and even office bearers of Hindu bodies were appointed by the Govt. as Public Prosecutors (PPs) to present cases against accused in riot cases who were largely activists and supporters of the Sangh Parivar. This was done despite the report about pro-accused posture of PPs by the State Intelligence Branch in its report dated 24th April 2002 (Annexure II(i)) to ACS Home and DGP. Officers in-charge of Legal, Home departments, the Collectors who recommended the names of pro-Sangh Parivar advocates for appointment as PPs are responsible for this lapse which had benefited only the accused of the 2002 communal riots.
            g) The Legal and Home departments of the Sate Govt. did not initiate any action on publishers of handbills, media reports, pamphlets containing materials enhancing hatred between communities and communal incitement, despite specific proposals from the field officers and SIB. The officers in charge of these departments at the relevant time are responsible for this negligence of duties.
            h (i) Misleading reports about normalcy in public order, the preparation of electoral rolls, the standard of rehabilitation of riot victims were presented by Home and Revenue departments before the full bench of the Central Election Commission (CEC) on 09th August 2002. This was a case of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. The CEC pointed out this major default of officers in its order dated 16th August 2002 – page No. 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 30, 31, 32, 39, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 59 and 60.
            h (ii) Shri. Ashok Narayan, Shri K Nityanandam IPS (1977), who made presentation on Law and Order, those in charge of the rehabilitation of riot victims particularly, Shri. S. M. F. Bukhari IAS (1982) and Shri. G. Subbarao, who made presentation on many aspects are responsible for submitting scanty, defective, misleading and ambiguous inputs to the CEC. The observations against the State Govt. officials by CEC, a constitutional body, had exposed the intellectual dishonesty, slackness and insincerity to the Constitution of India of the above mentioned officers. Suitable action is required to be taken against them.
i (i) The non maintenance of minutes of any of the Law and Order review meetings chaired by the Chief Minister, other Ministers, the Chief Secretary, the ACS Home, DGP etc. since 27th February, 2002 to 31st May 2002 (the crucial period of riots), had largely confirmed the validity of representation by riot victims and observations by national bodies like NHRC, National Commission for Minorities (NCM), CEC etc. about the State sponsored, patronized, promoted, facilitated, aided, abetted and enabled character of 2002 anti-minority carnage. Those who presided over these meetings, reportedly, were keen to violate the inalterable principles of transparency and creation of documents for any future probe, review or study of performance of functionaries mandated to enforce Law for upkeep of normalcy during 2002 riots. Not withstanding the inference of evil designs behind non maintenance of minutes of crucial meetings, this lapse per se is an unwarranted avoidable procedural omission, violating rule-3 of AIS (conduct) rules and provisions of Office Procedure quoted in AIS rules. Unless the participants in these meetings have memory skill of Adi Shankaracharya and intellectual stamina of Albert Einstein, how could they remember the nuances of decisions taken and thereafter monitor their implementation by linear junior officers.
i (ii) Reportedly the real motive behind the non-maintenance of minutes appears to be subtle dismantlement of responsibility and accountability matrix in the higher echelons of the State Administration relating to communal disturbances. The desired devilish objective has already been achieved by the defaulters when neither Gujarat Police nor the Special Investigation Team (SIT), headed by Dr. R. K. Raghavan did take cognizance of the offences committed by the senior officers from the rank of Dy. SP to DGP and Taluka Magistrate to Home Secretary for the wide spread mass violence and subversion of the CJS due to want of important documents (only two Police Inspectors were arrested for riots by SIT). SIT had pointed out that the non-availability of relevant documents as an impediment to efficient and focused investigation.
j (i). All riot related cases are grave crimes, whose investigation has to be supervised by officers of the rank of Dy. SP and above as per rule-134 and 135 of GPM vol-III. Chapter IV and V of the GPM vol-III captioned 1. Investigation of Crimes and 2. Detailed procedure regarding investigation, respectively had delineated nugget by nugget and point by point, sequential steps to be taken in the course of investigation of various types of crimes. Specific supervisory duties by Dy. SP to DGP are also listed. But in most of the riot related cases, the police officials unabashedly violated this SOP which had only resulted in numerous litigations by riot victims, NGOs and even NHRC asking for investigation by CBI and other special agencies of all riot cases. Appointment of SIT in March 2008 by the Apex Court was an outcome of these petitions.
j (ii) There was an inglorious instance of the police filing closure reports on 2000 odd riot cases as undetected by not issuing even statutory notice under CRPC to complainants, who registered the FIR. The Apex Court in August 2004 had ordered reinvestigation of all these cases. This is an instance of deliberate slack supervision of riot cases by officers from the rank of Dy. SP to DGP. Unfortunately the State Govt. through their chosen police officers had torpedoed the investigation of these 2000 odd cases by pressurizing the complainants and witnesses to go against their complaints and statements against the accused persons. This has been made a condition precedent on the riot victims for their rehabilitation and resettlement in the pre-riot habitats and vocations. Consequently 90% of such reinvestigated cases, reportedly, had ended in non-arrest of the accused or their acquittal.
j (iii) The Police officers in the upward supervisory ladder in the posts of SP, Range DIG/ IG and DGP also did nothing substantial to ensure proper investigation of riot cases, including the reinvestigated cases as per the Apex Court orders, through the proper use of the system of perusal of case diaries and crime memos of such cases, periodical crime reviews and crime conferences, police station and SP offices inspection etc. All relevant jurisdictional officers from Dy. SP to DGP should be made accountable for this delinquency of violating the laid down procedures and be dealt with suitably.
k (i). On 10th September 2002, the National Commission for Minorities (NCM), sent a fax message to the Chief Secretary asking for a full text of inflammatory speeches against the Muslim community during the Gaurav Yatra (Pride Procession) led by Chief Minster Narendra Modi. The copy of this fax message was sent to me with a written order by DGP for immediate compliance. In response, I had sent a general report on Gaurav Yatra including the gist of speeches made by the CM in the yatra on 12th September 2002 to DGP and Home department. In this report, I observed that the style of language used by the CM at Bahucharaji (Mehsana district) and Chanasma (Patan district) had wounded the feelings of minority community and due to this reason there was a likelihood of intensification of communal tension. Soon I was called by DGP Shri. Chakravarti and he instructed verbally to me to avoid sending a report on the full text of CM’s controversial speech at Bahucharaji and its audio cassette. I resisted these orders as it was against the charter of duties of SIB. I also told DGP that Shri Narendra Modi was one of the persons whose speeches were to be covered and recorded in verbatim, by SIB as per existing orders and therefore once I received the material, I would sent the text and cassette to the DGP and Home department. On the afternoon of 13th September 2002, DGP had sent another copy of NCM fax message with a written instruction, in his own handwriting, as follows “ACS Home told me on 11th that we do not have to send any report in this regard. ADGP (Int) be informed accordingly”. This order was totally in violation of rule-461 of GPM vol-III and other general instructions on SIB duties regarding communal situation and the supervisory responsibility of ADGP intelligence. So ignoring this unethical and illegal written orders of the DGP, I had sent the text of same speech by the CM at Bahucharaji in Gujarati language with English translation along with the audio cassette on 16th September 2002 evening. On 17th September 2002 night, I was served with a transfer order from the post of ADGP intelligence to the post of ADGP Police Reforms, an assignment without any charter of duties, where I continued upto my date of superannuation on 28th February, 2007. I was posted as in-charge of SIB on 9th April 2002 and my transfer on 17th September 2002 was in violation of State Govt. resolution dated 29th June 2002, fixing a minimum tenure of 3 years for IPS officers posted in SIB.
k (ii). For issuing illegal orders to me for not sending text of CM’s controversial speech, despite the orders from a national body NCM, DGP Shri. K. Chakravarti and ACS Home, Shri. Ashok Narayan were responsible and for this delinquent action should be taken against them under AIS (conduct) rules.
l. The Commission probing into 2002 riots is a fact finding body and not a trial court hearing the prosecution side and defence in a criminal case. Since the Commission is tasked to comment on the conduct of the Chief Minister and bureaucrats during riots as per the Terms of Reference dated 20th July 2004, no Govt. official can come in the way of free flow of information to the Commission. So attempt by Govt. officials with or without the directions of the higher authorities to brief, tutor, cajole, direct, pressurize, and intimidate a witness who was summoned by the Commission for cross examination is a gross misconduct and an act of obstructing public servant in discharge of his lawful functions and also his commitment to truth and integrity. This being the position in the perspective of substantial law and administrative procedural directives, the act of persuading and cajoling me by Shri. Dinesh Kapadia, Under Sec. Home  Department, (the supervisory department of all police officers), before my cross examination by the Commission is a clear misconduct. Shri. G. C. Murmu, Secy. Home Department and Shri. Arvind Pandya, Govt. Pleader to the Commission had jointly tutored, pressurized and intimidated me to speak in favor of the Govt. during my cross examination before the Commission. The audio cassette of both interactions are submitted with the verbatim version to the Commission and SIT for necessary further investigations (please see Annexure-III a & b enclosed with this representation).
32. In a frank suo-motto revelation to me by ACS Home Ashok Narayan in August 2004, the anti-Muslim bias of the administration including judiciary is nicely portrayed. I had presented the details of this interaction in my ninth Affidavit to the Commission. The relevant conversation runs thus “Ashok Narayan – Now I am telling you the environment at that time. All the vakeels on VHP side, All judges, many of the judges were also on VHP side, right, Doctors also did not treat patients because they were Muslims. In that situation what can be done?, Tell me. Bail applications neglected. What can we (Home department) stay on? What can we say? The entire society is like that. PP again….discussion held with Law Minister.” (Audio recording of the conversation is also available). In fact the above picture presented by Shri. Ashok Narayan is almost like a extra-judicial admission which would totally falsify the claims of the Govt. and Home Dept about their effective implementation of SOP.
33. The delinquent officers, responsible for numerous defaults as narrated above, cannot take the defense for their numerous omissions and commissions that they had used discretion and followed the principle of subjective satisfaction in following SOP, regarding their alleged deviant actions because all such actions had facilitated, promoted, aided, abetted anti-minority violence and enabled the rioters to carry out anti-minority pogrom in Gujarat. The question as to why the officers, who enforced SOP and maintained public order effectively in two Commissionerates and seventeen police districts did not use their discretion in favor of anti-minority brigands remains unanswered.
34. Justification of defaults on the ground of verbal orders from higher formations also will not hold water because as per conduct rules, the officers have to get written orders confirming verbal instructions before carrying out actions beyond their authority and jurisdiction as per AIS rules.
35. In his recent book captioned “Patriots and Partisans”, eminent historian Ramachandra Guha had lamented about degradation of public institutions and their riding roughshod over laws, creating a virtual situation of “the Indian State” becoming the biggest threat to “the idea of India”. Nearly 20 specific delinquent acts of Govt. servants narrated earlier had only created favorable conditions for rioters to go on a killing spree in 2002 in Gujarat. It is an illustration of dismal state of affairs that prevailed in Gujarat, as painted by Ramachandra Guha in his above mentioned book.
36. The long drawn out (27th February 2002 to 31st May 2002) sectarian riots in 2002 can be compared with the disrobing of Maharani Draupadi in the open Kaurava court depicted in the great epic of Mahabharata. The undesirable posture of silent approval by Dhritharashtra, the Emperor and final authority, Bhishma Pitamaha, Dhronacharya etc. (senior members of the cabinet) towards Duryodhana’s heinous crime is re-enacted in Gujarat riots. During the Gujarat communal butchery, the Rule of Law, the beloved daughter of our Mother, the Constitution of India, represented Draupadi. The Central Govt. and the Prime Minister A. B. Vajpayee’s un-empathetic approach to the riot victims was like that of Maharaja Dhritharashtra who though condemned actions of Duryodhana and his criminal companions like Dushashana as violation of Raja Dharma but did not even move his little finger to check or counter them or to penalize them later. In case of Gujarat, the CM Narendra Modi, who knew the requirements of the Rule of Law, as a person who became Chief minister after declaring Oath of Loyalty to the Constitution of India but did not act decisively to contain riots was like Duryodhana, who had admitted that he was aware of the requirements of righteousness but did not remain sincere to it, on the other hand Duryodhana had confirmed that he pursued evil despite a full awareness about the consequences “Gnanami Dharmam Na Cha Me Pravarti; Gnanami Adharmam Na Cha Me Nivarti”. Pepetrators of violence like Babu Bajrangi and Maya Ben Kodnani, convicted by court for mass murders in Naroda Patia represented Dushshasana and other Kauravas. The role of Bhishma Pitamaha and Dhronacharya were exemplified in the acts of several delinquent acts by officers like the Chief Secy. G. Subbarao, ACS Home Ashok Narayn – a scholar in Hindu scriptures who wrote commentary on the Bhagwat Gita, DGP K. Chakravarti etc. Bhishma Pitamaha when requested by Yudhisthara to join in the battle on the Pandavas’ side, had expressed his predicament of serving the Kauravas “Men are slave to wealth (includes power and status) and I am with Kauravas for this reason – Arthasya Purshodasaha | Dasashtvartho Na Kashyachit | Iti Satyam Maharaja | Baddhodsmyarthana Kaurave ||” – Bhishmavadhaparvam, 41-42. This Bhishma’s admission of guilt should explain the motive of above mentioned senior officers. Working under the system of Constitution of India, Govt. functionaries were not helpless like Bhishma or Dhrona as the latter were not protected by a Constitution and AIS rules but were at the total mercy of the whims and fancies of Dhuryodhana. After all three IPS officers – R. B. Sreekumar, Rahul Sharma and Sanjeev Bhat did get justice from the higher Judiciary though their ordeals and tribulations are still not over.
37. IAS and IPS officers, drawn from Muslim community, reportedly, did not advance any evidence to the Commission and investigators from Gujarat Police or SIT so far. Six IAS officers serving Gujarat State during the riots were 1. S.M.F Bukhari (1982) – as officer in-charge of relief and rehabilitation of riot victims, his work was criticized and CEC had made adverse observations about misleading data presented by him to CEC (CECs order dated 16th August 2002 – Annexure I), 2. A. A. Nagori (1985), Additional Secretary – Education, 3. I. R. Perizada (1994) – DDO Valsad, 4. J. S. Haldar (1991) – Collector Gandhinagar, 5. Shamina Hussain (1987) – Dy. Sec. Narmada Water Resource Dept. and 6. Mohammad Shaheed (1998) – Asst. Collector Godhra. The IPS Officers were 1. S. S. Khandwawala (1973) – Addl. DGP Training – His house in Navrangpura in Ahmedabad city was attacked by Hindu mobs, 2. A. I. Sayed (1978) – Joint Director, State Police Academy, Gandhinagar – On the bandh day, he was encircled by VHP supporters and attacked and he was saved by the skill and maneuverability of his police driver, 3. M. O. Khimani (1980) – Joint Commissioner, Ahmedabad City, 4. F. M. Guard (1982), 5. S. M. Sheikh (1991) – SP Crime, 6. Samiullah Ansari (1992) – DCP Traffic, Ahmedabad city and 7. Kurshid Ahmed (1997) – Commandant SRPF Group II, Ahmedabad city – His act of unauthorizedly closing the gates of SRPF camp near Naroda Patia when local Muslims under attack from Hindu crowds sought shelter in SRP camp on the bandh day became quite controversial. Taking advantage of protection given to witnesses under section 6 of Commission of Enquiry Act, these officers could have submitted relevant information regarding Terms of Reference to the Commission, particularly about the alienation and pain undergone by them and agonies of members of their community during the riots. But all of them have played safe and some of them have become supporters of hidden agenda of the political bureaucracy in the Govt. One senior IPS officer joined BJP after retirement and another had played an unworthy role in pressurizing complainants among riot victims to turn hostile for the benefit of Hindu accused persons. In short, self centered careerism motivated them to take such a stand at the cost of empathy to riot victims and ideals of the Constitution of India.
38. The State Govt. would be in a slippery ground if it takes a stand against initiating departmental action against delinquent officers on the ground of pendency of cases in the courts on judicial verdicts in which strictures were passed. The Govt. did not wait for final outcome of cases for taking actions against IPS officers like R. B. Sreekumar (1971), Rahul Sharma (1992) and Sanjeev Bhat (1998) who gave evidence against the Govt. to the Commission and SIT, uncovering the State sponsored nature of riots. Strangely 32 officers were rewarded with out-of-turn promotions, post retirement placements etc. even while their conduct during the riots is still under judicial scrutiny. Most of these officers were responsible for dereliction of duties and misconduct by violating SOP and statutory supervisory duties streamlined in GPM and other Govt. regulations. Details of undue favors and unwarranted punishments were submitted to the Commission in my Sixth Affidavit in Sep 2010.
39. The morale of officers in Gujarat police and civil administration, who are sincere to the requirements of the Rule of Law is in a state of steady decline and degradation due to the above narrated factors. The killing of nearly twenty innocent persons in the alleged fake encounters by a coterie of police officers close to the political bureaucracy from October 2002 to April 2007 – when three IPS officers were arrested for extra judicial killings - was indicative of Govt’s nepotic policy of rewarding those unhesitatingly deviating from legal framework and their charter of duties for providing political and electoral capital to the political bureaucracy (former Minister of State for Home Amit Shah was also arrested for the crime of fake encounters). A strange phenomenon of competitive and anticipatory sycophancy practiced by unscrupulous and corrupt police officers to get closer to top political bureaucracy has been noticed since the days of 2002 riots in Gujarat. There is general public outcry against increasing corruption at grass root level Govt. offices of service delivery, that is, police station, Mamalatdar Panchayat offices etc, because practically all important executive posts are allegedly manned by “favourites” of the ruling party. Non-registration of FIRs on property offences like chain snatching, extortion, thefts and even murders in case of recovery of unidentified dead bodies with multiple pre-mortem injuries is extensively practiced by police for projecting a false image of crime control. Macro level false statistics camouflage the micro level reality of pushing the crimes under the colorful carpet of propaganda.
40. The Honorable Prime Minister Shri, Manmohan Singh, in his first one day national conference of Supts. of Police, (1st September 2005) said that adherence to professional code of conduct is important, necessary and possible for police. He added that people must have confidence in police professionalism, honesty, integrity and efficiency. The myriad deeds of illegality and impropriety enacted by several IAS and IPS officers during 2002 riots and afterwards in Gujarat, were totally contrary to the above exhortation by the Prime Minister. Effective departmental action against defaulters in the only right step for redeeming the situation in Gujarat and other places.
41. All Govt. orders are issued in the name of Governor of the State and so in a precarious predicament of a group of Govt. servants violating procedural and regulatory instructions, the citizens have no grievance redressal mechanism other than approaching the H E The Governor. Normally judiciary will not entertain Public Interest Litigation (PIL) relating to non-implementation of SOP by officials unless there is a case of injustice affecting directly the petitioner, on the principal of locus standi. The subversion of the regulatory managerial system by aberrant officers, narrated earlier, had harmed and debilitated public interests substantially and so I have ventured to submit this representation for the kind perusal and immediate necessary action by H E The Governor of Gujarat State.
42. The Honorable Governor may kindly direct the State Government for initiating the following action.
a)    Commence the process of departmental actions against officers who failed to implement SOP relating to the genesis, course and aftermath of communal riots in 2002.
b)    Proceed against all officers who committed professional lapses due to incompetence or with ulterior motives, in the investigation of riot related cases, by violating streamlined procedure of supervision envisaged in CRPC, Gujarat Police Manual and other regulations. A close examination of case papers of riot cases is imperative in this matter.
c)    Start close scrutiny of all judgments on riot related cases from the Special Courts to the Apex Court and take suitable departmental action on strictures and adverse observations by judiciary against relevant officers, besides initiating measures to implement court’s suggestions on energisation of the Criminal Justice System.
d)    Initiate departmental action against officers responsible for various delinquencies listed in para 31 (a) to (l).

43. A well settled legal position asserts that departmental proceeding for deviations from and violations of administrative and procedural regulations can be embarked upon irrespective of the outcome of criminal or civil cases in the same transactions and issues. State Govt. officials who acted as patrons, facilitators and enablers towards the enactment of anti-minority atrocities in 2002 and denial of justice delivery to riot victim survivors are, today, proudly relaxing in Govt. secured sanctuaries of immunity from criminal prosecution and departmental action. This state of affairs has generated and sustained an ambience of euphoric permissiveness among all officers who had ganged up and promoted the planners and executors of riots, besides enfeebling the professional quality and evidential merit of riot cases for saving the culprits responsible for 2002 riots from the clutches of law.

44. In this background, the riot victim survivors and agile citizens do ardently crave for your Excellency’s timely mediation and intervention in the matter for durably re-establishing a state of stability, order and discipline in the bureaucracy and police in Gujarat State.

45. Ancient Indian wisdom on the administration of justice counsels thus “If one, injured by others in violation of a law of the Smritis and usage, were to inform the King (here H E Governor), that becomes a fit matter for judicial proceedings”.
Smrityacharavyapetena Margernakharshitha Pareha |
Avedayati Chendranjo Vyavaharpadam Hi Tat ||
(Yajnavalkya Smriti II – 5)

Hence I submit this representation.
NB: A statement captioned “Chart of delinquency and delinquents” is enclosed as Annexure-IV
Yours faithfully,

Dr. Shrimati Kamalaji
Her Excellency The Governor of Gujarat State
Raj Bhawan, Gandhinagar,
Gujarat - 382020
Copy with complements to:
1. The Secretary, Justice Nanavati & Justice Akshay Mehta Commission
Bunglow No. 33. Opposite Police Stadium, Shahi Bagh
Ahmedabad – 380004
2. Dr. R. K. Raghavan IPS (Ret’d)
Chairman SIT, Block No. 11, Jivraj Mehta Bhavan,
Gandinagar – 382010

NB : 

No comments:

Post a comment