இரண்டு ஆண்டுகளுக்குப் பிறகு குஜராத் வருகிறேன். மேலும் அது முன்னேறியுள்ளது. உங்களால் எப்படி சாத்தியமானது? ஏதாவது மந்திரக்கோல் வைத்திருக்கிறீர்களா?
The media has twisted SIT report on Modi out of shape
by Kartikeya Tanna May 12, 2012
A strong perceptional bias against Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi has prevailed once again with some sections of the media showing a thoroughly deficient understanding of Indian law and its nuances, and the role of the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigative Team (SIT) in probing the Gujarat riots.
In concluding that no offence under Indian criminal law can be made out against Modi, SIT observed how various statements attributed to the Gujarat Chief Minister, both alleged and otherwise, have been taken out of context to support baseless accusations. Almost ironically, Modi now has company. The team that grilled him for nine hours is the latest victim of misconstruction and selective quoting.
The SIT’s role: First, let’s recall that SIT was investigating allegations contained in the criminal complaint filed by Ms Zakia Jafri against Modi and others. Its scope of inquiry was not to study administrative lapses, “moral responsibility” or political decision-making.
A strong perceptional bias against Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi has prevailed once again. Reuters
After investigating all allegations, the SIT was to provide its findings and opine whether any criminal offences can be made out against any accused after which the courts (and not the SIT nor Amicus Curiae) could take the final decision. If there is any skepticism on why SIT went into several matters not usual in a criminal proceeding, one may refer to the nature of allegations raised in Ms Jafri’s complaint itself.
Given that the Amicus Curiae has also disregarded allegations by IPS officer RB Sreekumar and the late Haren Pandya, Sanjeev Bhatt’s allegations and his credibility as a witness comprise a major portion of the SIT closure report.
Did the SIT have to examine the credibility of Bhatt at length? The answer is an obvious yes.
As the investigating and prosecuting entity, the SIT has to take a call on whether, based on its findings, the judiciary’s valuable time can be engaged. As pointed out earlier, Sanjeev Bhatt, as a witness, would be impeached under Indian laws (primarily Section 153 of the Indian Evidence Act) in little time. The SIT, unlike everyone else, does not have the luxury of relying on seriously doubtful evidence, including fabricated documents, put forth by a witness lacking credibility.
“Action-reaction”: The US invasion of Iraq under the notion of ‘pre-emptive self-defence’ was severely criticised. Initially, however, the US believed it had the right to invade Iraq under international law. A few Iraqi civilians got provoked by it and killed US soldiers. The commonality in both the “action” of the US and the “reaction” of Iraqis is a subjective thought process guiding their actions, whether legal or otherwise, justified or unjustified.
Therefore, if one states the bland fact that “the US invasion of Iraq led to provocation of civilians”, does it mean a justification of either act? Does it mean that an act done in self-defence cannot subjectively provoke anyone, even if wrongly?
What Modi allegedly said – allegedly, because Zee News has not been able to provide the SIT a CD of the full interview – and what the SIT referred to was a bland statement of fact. Both neither attempted to justify the late Ehsan Jafri’s subjective assessment of the need for self-defence (“action”) nor the frenzy of the provoked mob (“reaction”).
This is evidenced by the fact that Modi repeatedly pleaded to the public to remain calm and maintain peace while assuring that the government (not the public) will take strict action against those responsible for the Godhra incident. The Zee News interviewer, Sudhir Chaudhary, has also stated that Modi wanted “neither action nor reaction”. Further, Modi also publicly stated that those who acted in anger and retaliation after the Godhra incident – the rioters – shall not be spared.
If this is not convincing, the author strongly suggests reading pages 428 to 450 of the SIT closure report which elaborates what the government machinery did under Modi’s directions. One can always see the government’s handling of the unimaginable catastrophe as a glass half-full or half-empty. In Modi’s case, most media outlets have seen the glass itself with coloured lenses, grabbing each little window of opportunity to distort facts or report half-truths at the cost of sound and objective reportage.
“Four walls”: SIT’s legal conclusions on a hypothetical situation, assuming that Modi did say “let Hindus vent their anger”, have been picked up by the media without attempting to understand the specific IPC offences referred to. The SIT was responding to Amicus Curiae’s opinion that offences can still be made out under Sections 153A(1)(a) & (b), 153B(1)(c), 166 and 505(2) IPC (despite the fact that there are three materially distinct versions of Modi’s utterances floating around).
For sections 153A, 153B and 505, it is necessary that such words are uttered in a sufficiently public manner so as to cause disharmony, ill-will or hatred between different groups. This is where SIT figuratively used the much-criticised “statement uttered in the four walls” phrase to explain the higher threshold of these IPC offences.
As for Section 166, the SIT opined that no directions can be quoted from law for Modi to disobey them. Modi repeatedly appealing for calm and giving directions to control riots (pages 428 to 450) contradicts any conclusion of disobedience of the law.
It must be pointed out that this discussion is academic in nature since the SIT has not found any credible evidence to show that Modi had uttered those words.
Judgments on the administrative and political handling of the post-Godhra situation by the Modi government, as Shashi Shekhar points out have to be made in the voters’ courts. How Modi will fare at the national level, if chosen by the BJP as its prime ministerial candidate, remains to be seen.
For the moment, the concept of justice for many has confined itself to nailing one man under any possible theory. The next stop for Bhatt, as explained earlier is the National Commission for Minorities where he has been allowed to carry out his personal agenda in what is a simple private complaint which, incidentally, is also sub-judice.
http://www.firstpost.com/politics/the-media-has-twisted-sit-report-on-modi-out-of-shape-307207.html
Amicus curiae vs SIT: Which report is true?
by FP Staff May 8, 2012
Tale of two reports: Amicus Curiae says investigate Modi
Amicus report on Modi full of infirmities, conjectures
Amicus curiae or the SIT report? Which one tells the truth? After Ramchandra Ramu’s report, an amicus curiae appointed by the supreme court in the 2002 riots case was made public yesterday, the debates around which report is right have been raging.
Teesta Setalvad of Citizens for Justice and Peace and Meenakshi Lekhi from the BJP were on a late night discussion on CNN-IBN with Rajdeep Sardesai debating the merits of the two reports.
When Sardesai asked Setalvad what the big discrepancies she found in the two reports were, she said, “The conclusions drawn by the SIT to 22,000 page evidence are untenuous and we shall point it out in our protest petition.”
“There is one paragraph in page 242 in the SIT report which I found shocking. It says that even if the chief minister has uttered words like allow Hindus to vent their anger in a closed room it doesn’t amount to an offense. That is SIT’s view of the law?” Setalvad said.
Lekhi said that Setalvad is reading the paragraph out of context. “The SIT must have gone into exact detail whether the statements made are right or wrong.”
Here’s the link of the amicus curiae’s report.
http://www.firstpost.com/politics/amicus-curiae-vs-sit-which-report-is-true-302084.html
Amicus report on Modi full of infirmities, conjectures
by Kartikeya Tanna May 8, 2012
The amicus curiae report (“AC report”) on Narendra Modi, prepared pursuant to a Supreme Court directive has, on the basis of the same evidence before the Special Investigation Team (SIT), arrived at a different conclusion. The AC, Raju Ramachandran, has opined that certain offences under the Indian Penal Code can prima facie be made out against Modi at this stage.
This deductive exercise based on IPS officer Sanjeev Bhatt’s allegations is replete with infirmities and speculation. Bhatt has alleged that (a) he was present at the law and order review meeting called by the CM on 27 February; and (b) Modi instructed the police “not to deal with the Hindu rioting mobs”.
Using two negatives instead of a positive
Firstly, the AC report uses two negatives to support a prima facie case which should ideally be supported by a positive. While the question of burden of proof in criminal matters admittedly comes only at the trial stage, the prosecuting agency has a stronger prima facie case if it has material proving the accusations rather than absence of material negating the accusations.
Reuters
For example, Ramachandran asserts that because there is no documentary material which can establish that Bhatt was not present in the meeting, he should not be disbelieved (Paragraph 23). It may be useful to point out here that Ramachandran has had to recant a similar premise regarding Haren Pandya’s presence in an interim note submitted to the Supreme Court (SC) in which he had said that “it may not be totally unbelievable that Haren Pandya was present at the meeting” (Observation No 4, Chart-A; Recanter in Paragraph 46 of the AC report).
Indeed, Haren Pandya had passed away by the time the SIT initiated investigations. But the negligible prosecutable value of such a premise is rather obvious.
Bhatt’s word against everyone else’s
The AC report seeks to undermine the credibility of the officers who attended the meeting by quoting SIT’s Preliminary Report which places them into categories such as: (a) those claiming loss of memory; (b) those who obtained lucrative post-retirement benefits; and (c) those who were serving public officers.
Even if this were the case, one important retired officer – the then DGP K Chakravarthi – has categorically denied Bhatt’s presence on more than one occasion. Chakravarthi, who knew Sanjeev Bhatt better than the rest due to their hierarchy in the Gujarat police, is one such attendee officer who does not fall into any of the three categories.
Impeachment of Bhatt as a witness on grounds of lack of credibility
Ramachandran asserts that the evidentiary value of testimonies of some attendee officers is doubtful due to the “lack of credibility”, in that they obtained lucrative post-retirement benefits. Admittedly, some substance can theoretically be shown in these assertions even if post-retirement benefit is the only factor. What he misses, however, is the presence of several factors significantly eroding Bhatt’s own credibility as a witness.
For example, Bhatt had also claimed the presence at a subsequent meeting at the CM’s residence on the next day at 10:30 am whereas the call records indicate that he was in Ahmedabad at 10:57 am and he could not have reached Gandhinagar till 11:30 am.
Further, Ramachandran himself states that Bhatt’s repeated attempts to make himself heard in several forums shows that he has not been a “detached police officer” content with giving his version (Paragraph 22). Bhatt’s latest attempt to expand the limited scope of a private complaint before the NCM to his personal agenda has been pointed out earlier.
Further, he is “fully conscious” of the fact that Bhatt has made attempts to get other witnesses to support his case as a part of his active “strategising” efforts along with those who would gain mileage from his testimony (Paragraphs 22 and 29). These are only a few out of many reasons why the SIT has chosen not to rely on Bhatt’s statements that could be seen as motivated.
Under Indian evidence laws, Bhatt, as a witness, would be impeached in no time due to lack of credibility. Yet, according to Ramachandran, these factors cannot be grounds for ignoring his statements primarily because it is unlikely that a serving police officer would make such a serious allegation against a chief minister without some basis (Paragraph 23).
That Ramachandran overlooks his own assertion regarding Bhatt’s strategic motives which have been at full display since he made allegations against Modi is quite surprising.
Speculations galore
Ramachandran then makes several speculations as to what could have happened in order to rebut what much of the hard evidence collated by the SIT sufficiently indicates did not happen.
In relation to SIT calling Bhatt’s bluff as to his presence in the subsequent meeting of 28 February, Ramachandran makes a contrived attempt by raising possibilities such as: (a) there is no evidence to show that Bhatt was at a place other than Gandhinagar after 10:57 am; and (b) the 28 February meeting could have been held at a time other than 10:30 am.
He further guesses that since Bhatt had accompanied the then ADGP (Intelligence) in the past to a few meetings called by the CM, Bhatt could have been directed to attend the 27 February meeting as well and that his “juniority” need not have come in the way of his attendance (Paragraph 25).
While there are no tightly defined requirements for establishing a prima facie case, it certainly does not mean a collection of double negatives and theoretical possibilities are valid. The SIT, unlike everyone else, does not have the luxury of relying on flimsy grounds to take the case forward. Therefore, if the prosecution relies on a witness whose credibility is open to challenge, it reflects poorly on the prosecuting entity.
How the AC report will weigh in the proceedings before the Ahmedabad Metropolitan Court remains to be seen. For the moment, however, it will be peddled as truth by those very “strategists” Ramachandran decries in his report.
The author has explained other aspects (such as the meaning of a prima facie case, magistrate’s options and Ms Ehsan Jafri’s rights) of the amicus curiae report at length on his website here .
http://www.firstpost.com/india/amicus-report-on-modi-full-of-infirmities-conjectures-302011.html
New Indian-Chennai News + more
| Post Info | TOPIC: Gujarat- Modi- Politics | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
||
|
