ibnlive » India » Gujarat

Gulbarg massacre: Court to hear SIT's response to Zakia Jafri's plea against Modi clean chit

CNN-IBN
Feb 12, 2013 at 07:30am IST

Ahmedabad: The High Court is expected to hear on Tuesday the Special Investigation Team's (SIT) response to Congress MP's widow Zakia Jafri's petition against the clean chit SIT gave to Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in the 2002 Gujarat riots cases. The SIT had earlier recommended that the case against Modi and 62 others should be closed.

Zakia Jafri's husband, Congress MP Ehsan Jafri, was burnt to death during the riots of 2002. The SIT had probed allegations of inaction by Modi and senior officials during the carnage at the Gulberg Society in Ahmedabad where Ehsan Jafri was killed, along with 68 others.

A bench of Justice P Sathasivam, Justice Aftab Alam and Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai had directed that Zakia be supplied with the entire report of the court-appointed SIT so that she could file her protest petition. Permitting her to file a protest petition within two months of receiving all the material, the court, however, had said that she would not be supplied with the comments of SIT chief and former Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) director RK Raghvan on the closure report.

Court to hear SIT's response to Zakia Jafri's plea

The SIT had earlier recommended that the case against Modi and 62 others should be closed.

Allowing Zakia to file a fresh petition, the court had also set aside the July 16 and November 27, 2012, orders of the Ahmedabad Magistrate's Court. Zakia had moved the Supreme Court contending the Magistrate's Court has not given her all the documents that the SIT had relied upon while filing the closure of its investigation into her complaint.

The apex court January 17 asked the Ahmedabad Court not to pronounce its orders on the closure report filed by the SIT into the allegation of inaction. Zakia had contended that the denial of all the documents by the Magistrate Court that SIT had relied upon for filing its closure report was contrary to the September 12, 2011, order of the Supreme Court.

(With Additional Inputs from IANS)

Latest

More from this section