Gujarat riot trials: Centre’s activism not appreciated

TNN / Apr 20, 2010, 01:23 IST

Text Size

Small
Medium
Large

It may be overenthusiasm or sheer coincidence, but the Centre pointing out the reservation of public prosecutors over the manner in which the trial is being conducted in post-Godhra riot cases made the Supreme Court a little suspicious about its role.

Gujarat riot trials: Centre’s activism not appreciated

NEW DELHIIt may be overenthusiasm or sheer coincidence, but the Centre pointing out the reservation of public prosecutors over the manner in which the trial is being conducted in post-Godhra riot cases made the Supreme Court a little suspicious about its role.
Amicus curiae and Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam, who is briefed by additional solicitor general Harin Raval, on Monday apprised the court about fresh reservations of a special public prosecutor regarding the manner in which the SC-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) was proceeding with the cases and the trials.
Subramaniam, who had last month brought an identical objection from another PP in charge of a riot case trial, said it was rather odd that PP had written to the SIT but the latter had not taken any action on it and that the court should take an appropriate view of it.
But, the Bench comprising Justices D K Jain, P Sathasivam and Aftab Alam appeared to smell a rat. It wondered as to how the Centre comes to know about such letters written by the PPs even before these were delivered to the SIT.

When the SG responded innocently that he learnt it from media reports and had asked the PP to give him the details, the Bench said: "Today we do not have any report before us. What we feel is that something is happening behind the scene."
"If the special public prosecutor is disclosing to media, he had no business to be the PP. It's between the PP and the concerned high court. Whatever happened between the PP and the SIT, how does the media know even prior to the SIT getting to learn about it?" the Bench asked.

"It is very unfortunate. If the SIT does not respond to the PP's grievances, we will deal with it," the Bench said. These remarks from the court spurred Gujarat counsel and senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi to add a little masala to the proceedings which had mostly been not to the liking of the Narendra Modi government.
Rohatgi said: "I am not attributing any motive to the Solicitor General. But, it is a little strange that the Centre comes to know of the PP's complaint much before anyone else and gets all details in writing from the PP concerned."
The Bench said: "So far as the conducting of trial by a PP is concerned, the Centre had no role to play."
The Bench adjourned the matter relating to an application filed by Cedric Prakash seeking reconstitution of the SIT, which rather surprisingly had recently faxed a letter to the Supreme Court seeking reconsideration of its April 6 order asking two of its members -- Sivanandan Jha and Geeta Johri -- to disassociate themselves from the ongoing probe into the riot cases.
Jha's counsel senior advocate Vikas Singh said that by ordering disassociation of his client from the investigation the court had damned him without hearing and that it cast a shadow on his 27-year-long unblemished career.
When the Bench said that it had not commented on his role and that it was for the court to choose which officer should take part in a probe or not, Singh said the SC could clarify that the April 6 order was not a reflection on his client's conduct. The case would be heard again on April 28.

End of Article