5 September 2013
Advocate for Complainant Smt Zakia Jafri assisted by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), Yusuf Shaikh, today filed an application before Magistrate Judge Ganatra pointing out that a biased SIT was deliberately distorting Orders of higher Courts and actually committing Contempt of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. They urged the Magistrate to ensure that the SIT put down their spurious arguments in writing. Annexed to the application were several relevant Orders of the Supreme Court also supplied to the Court before.The Text of the Application argued today is below :-
SUB : OBJECTIONS OF THE COMPLAINANT TO THE LINE OF ARGUMENTS BEING MADE BY THE SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM (SIT)
By repeatedly bringing up an Order of the High Court of November 2007, that was overturned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, when it first issued Notice to the Gujarat on 3-3-2008, directed SIT to “look into” the Complaint dated 8.6.2006 first on 27-4-2004 and then through repeated orders directed Investigations through 2010 and 2011, expressly directing Further Investigations on 15.3.2011 –including directing the Amicus Curaie Raju Ramachandran to meet senior police officer witnesses bypassing SIT and seeing whether an offence has been made out (5.5.2011)—the SIT has been, and is, repeatedly committing contempt of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The SIT is deliberately not reading from the 12.9.2011 Order of the SC, and bypassing that Order, that differed with the Findings of the Gujarat High Court and remanded the Complaint to a Magistrate’s Court, and explicitly preserved the Complainant Smt Jafri’s right to file a Protest Petition after accessing all the Investigation Papers.
This Hon’ble Court is being misled and contempt of the SC is being committed by the SIT. These aspects of the SIT need to be recorded in writing. The Complainant is placing her strong objections to this stratagem of the SIT and prays that the Ld Magistrate record these spurious and misleading arguments by the SIT.
Even after proceedings in the Ld Court began, the SIT instead of functioning like an Independent Investigating agency has been doing the job of shielding the powerful accused and has strongly resisted supplying Investigation Papers to the Complainant expressly violating Paras 8 and 9 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Order dated 12.9.2011.The SIT cited ‘confidentiality’ of its Reports filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as being the prime reason for withholding them. The Complainant had then argued that when the Reports of the Amicus Curiae dated 20.1.2011 and 25.7.2011, also in the first instance supplied in the ‘sealed cover’ to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, were thereafter, directed to be handed over to the Complainant by the Hon’ble Supreme Court itself, how could Investigation Reports be treated as confidential?
Since 9.2.2012, the Complainant through her advocates, has rigorously argued this point, citing Paras 8 and 9 of the Final Orders of the SC dated 12.9.2012 (attached yet again). Lengthy arguments, including in writing were given to the Court on 15.3.2012. Finally on 10.4.2012 Judge Bhatt granted the Complainant’s prayers and 65 Files of the Investigation papers were supplied to the Complainant on 7.5.2012.
On examination it was found that Previous Statements and Investigation reports concerned with the Investigation were deliberately not part of the Papers released to the Complainant. Specifically, IO AK Malhotra’s Report dated 12.5.2010, Chairman SIT remarks dated 14.5.2010 and Further Investigation reports dated 17.11.2010, 15.3.2011 and 24.4.2011 were requested and urged by the Complainant before this Ld Court. An examination of the documents provided by the SIT also found that the SIT had also excluded several Previous Statements of Accused and Other Witnesses from the records of the Investigation provided to the SIT.
SIT continued with misleading this Court as to its role and its investigation, continuing to shield powerful accused following which an Order turning down these requests was passed by this Ld Court on 16.07.2012.
The Complainant, aggrieved by this Order moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court through SLP 8989/2012, a copy of which was also supplied to this Ld Court at the relevant time. During the pendency of this SLP, the SIT in a thoroughly malafide manner pushed this Court to deny the Complainant her lawful right to file a Protest Petition.
Four hearings of this SLP 8989/2012 (3.12.2012, 10.12.2012, 17.1.2013, and 7.2.2013) restored the right of the Complainant to access all documents denied by the SIT and also restored her right to file the Protest Petition. Only chairman SIT’s remarks dated 14.5.2010 were kept confidential by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.The SIT today is deliberately ignoring all arguments on merit including the lawful right of the Complainant to file a Protest petition.
The Complainant is once again providing relevant Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The request is that these arguments of the SIT be recorded in writing. All aspects of the Complainant’s submissions have been made in detailed and in writing but the SIT, by deliberately making spurious oral arguments is committing a contempt of the Supreme Court.
Taizoon Khorakiwala Nandan Maluste Teesta Setalvad
Cyrus Guzder Javed Akhtar
Alyque Padamsee Anil Dharker Ghulam Pesh Imam
Javed Anand Cedric Prakash
Nirant, Juhu Tara Road, Juhu, Mumbai – 400 049. Ph: 2660 2288 email: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
'Nirant', Juhu Tara Road,
Juhu, Mumbai - 400 049