Activist Teesta Setalvad is the petitioner in the case being heard in the Supreme Court
New Delhi:
There is a larger plot “staged” by social activist Teesta Setalvad to smear Gujarat for nearly two decades, the state government told the Supreme Court today while arguing an opinion piece. in connection with the 2002 riots.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing in Gujarat, told the bench headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar that he had nothing to say against Zakia Jafri as she lost her near and dear ones but must have “limited exploitation” of a widow’s sufferings.
Zakia Jafri, the wife of Parliament leader Ehsan Jafri, who was killed at the Gulberg Society in Ahmedabad on February 28, 2002, during the violence, challenged her daughter to cleanliness by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) ) with 64 people, including Narendra Modi, then Chief Minister of Gujarat.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for SIT, argued that allegations of a larger conspiracy in the riots were being “promoted” by Teesta Setalvad, second in the lawsuit filed by Zakia Jafri submitted to the Supreme Court.
Tushar Mehta told the bench, which also included Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar: “I respectfully serve me that there is a larger conspiracy orchestrated by petitioner number two (Teesta Setalvad) to smear the whole world. a state ministry for nearly 20 years.
“I have nothing against petitioner number one (Zakia Jafri), she is injured, and she has lost her near and dear ones. I can’t say anything against her. But. , and I’m choosing my words very carefully, there must be a limit to exploiting the suffering of a widow,” he said.
Mr Mehta told the bench that SIT had periodically filed status reports before the highest court and in the last one it was “difficult” to indicate that Ms Setalvad was “accompanying witnesses, preparing get pre-typed affidavits and send them.”
“And I’ve been complaining from the very beginning why the SIT didn’t prosecute her for tampering with false evidence. This is nothing but forgery,” he said during the debates, which will now continue into the future. December 7th.
This is not a fabrication of evidence to involve “innocent people”, Mr. Mehta said.
He said: “What is the cause, what is the reason, what is the motive, what is the larger conspiracy that forces them to still keep the pot of rice boiling.”
Tushar Mehta also referred to the Gujarat High Court order passed in a separate matter regarding allegations of misappropriation of funds received by Ms. Setalvad’s NGOs for riot victims. 2002 year.
Mukul Rohatgi argued that all of this should be brought “quietly” to an end as there was nothing to substantiate the allegations of a larger conspiracy in the riot and the SIT launched an investigation. carefully about the lawsuit filed by Zakia Jafri in 2006.
He said that allowing Zakia Jafri to plead guilty would lead to great injustices as there was no fault in the orders passed by the courts below.
Mr. Rohatgi said: “I submit that it was motivated only by petitioner number two (Teesta Setalvad.) It was not controlled by this woman and it was clear that she said whatever the complainant said. petition number two told her”.
He mentioned the sequence and said the riot happened in 2002 while Zakia Jafri filed a complaint in 2006 alleging a larger conspiracy.
In criminal justice, the accused also has the right to a fair trial and finality of the proceedings.
“No one can be charged with an offense without a fair trial. At the same time, the accused also has the right to a fair and final trial,” the presiding judge said.
Earlier, Zakia Jafri’s lawyer argued that her 2006 complaint was “a larger conspiracy, which included bureaucratic incompetence, police complicity, hate speech and outbursts of publicity.” violence”.
Ehsan Jafri, a former member of parliament, was among 68 people killed in the violence, a day after the train in Godhra.
On 8 February 2012, SIT submitted a closing report giving a clean view to Narendra Modi, now Prime Minister, and 63 others including senior government officials, saying that there was no “indictable evidence” against them.
Zakia Jafri applied to the highest court in 2018 to protest the 5 October 2017 order of the Gujarat High Court rejecting her defense of the SIT decision.
The Supreme Court in its October 2017 order said that the SIT investigation was being followed up by the Supreme Court.
However, it somewhat allowed her lawsuit as they were relevant to require further investigation and said that she could access an appropriate forum, including the judge’s court, the magistrate’s bench. High Court or Supreme Court to seek further investigation.
.
