(September 2011)
Zakia Jaffrey is the only person who, without knowing anything about law, is expressing the true sentiments with respect to the SC order dt. 12.09.11 in Zakia Nasim Ahesan v. State of Gujarat (Re: Jakia Nasim Ahesan v. State of Gujarat & Anr, Criminal Appeal No 1765 of 2011 in the Supreme court of India; download the judgment from http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/outtoday/sr108808.pdf).
In this case, the SIT investigated the matter on the directions of the Supreme Court. The SC also appointed Amicus Curiae and directed him to file his report after an independent assessment of the statements of the witnesses who deposed before the SIT. The witnesses also included Sanjeev Bhatt. As per the media reports, the SIT rejected the statement of Sanjeev Bhatt and, in its report, gave a clean chit to Modi. Sanjeev Bhatt has filed an independent affidavit in the Supreme Court also. Vide order dt. 05.05.11, the Supreme Court didn’t take the affidavit of Sanjeev Bhatt on record and postponed the decision on the same after the report has been filed by the Amicus Curiae. I don’t know the independent assessment of the Amicus Curiae with respect to the statement of Sanjeev Bhatt, but, whatever may be the assessment, the SIT is not bound to include the report filed by the Amicus Curiae as part of its report to be filed before the Trial Court. In the words of the Supreme Court: “Before submission of its report, it will be open to the SIT to obtain from the Amicus Curiae copies of his reports submitted to this Court.” And, of course, the Supreme Court has not taken the affidavit filed by Sanjeev Bhatt on record in its order dt. 12.09.11 either.
The most important conclusion emerging from the order dt. 12.09.11 of the Supreme Court is that the Supreme Court has not doubted the SIT and has given it the final responsibility to file the investigation report before the Trial Court, and that is probably because the independent assessment by the Amicus Curiae is in sync with the assessment of the SIT including the assessment of Sanjeev Bhatt’s statement (The Amicus Curiae was the most important person in this whole case).
However, the Supreme Court has directed the Trial Court to give an opportunity to the complainant to file its protest in case the SIT files a “closure report”. But, that would be of any value only if the Amicus Curiae has reached a different assessment with respect to the statement of Sanjeev Bhatt (which I guess is not the case). So, it is a clear cut pro-Modi verdict.
Zakia Jaffrey, if the decision of the Supreme Court doesn’t satisfy you, there is no contempt of court in cursing the decision, so don’t change your position. That’s the only thing that can bring you closure now unless Sanjeev Bhatt goes out of the way to help you, which I doubt strongly.
Addendum
In the Vineet Narain Judgement (Re: Vineet Narain vs Union Of India, 1996 SCC (2) 199, JT 1996 (1) 708; download the judgment from http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1754201/) dt. 30.01.1996, the Supreme Court observed:
However, if in respect of any such person the final report after full investigation is that no prima facie case is made out to proceed further, so that the case must be closed against him, that report must be promptly submitted to this Court for its satisfaction that the concerned authorities have not failed to perform their legal obligations and have reasonably come to such conclusion.
I am also unhappy because the Supreme Court
has not finally decided the issue of “closure report” itself but
left it for the Trial Court to decide it. Also, I have not
understood the need for keeping the SIT report confidential.
BTW, not deciding the issue of “closure report” can also be a
ground for review (Stare Decisis).
2nd Addendum
Till now I have commented on the basis of media speculations, but now it has become clear that the SIT did file a closure report in the Supreme Court. What Supreme Court has done in this case is nothing less than a monumental blunder: It has overlooked its own precedence of the Vineet Narain Judgment dt. 30.01.1996 and failed to exercise its jurisdiction to reach a “satisfaction that the concerned authorities [i.e. the SIT] have not failed to perform their legal obligations and have reasonably come to such conclusion [i.e. the conclusion to close the case]” and has left it to the trial court to reach a conclusion.
It is now clear that the Amicus Curiae
reached a conclusion different from that of the SIT. I am surprised
how the Supreme Court could pass such an order. It is a manifestly
erroneous order. The Amicus Curiae was appointed by the Supreme
Court to draw conclusions with respect to the evidence collected by
the SIT. By leaving it to the SIT to file a closure report before
the Trial Court with a liberty to draw conclusion distinct from
that of the Amicus Curiae, the Supreme Court has basically made the
whole exercise of appointing the Amicus Curiae infructuous and
subjugated the independent position of the Amicus Curiae to the
discretion of the SIT. This is not only erroneous but also an
insult of the Bar. I am lost for words. Why has Mr. Raju
Ramachandran been keeping silent?
Of course, the opinions reached by the Amicus Curiae have been
overruled by the SIT in its closure report filed before the Trial
Court, and those being opinions, not evidence, are not to be
considered by the Trial Court. It is a different matter that the
Trial Court may also reach the same opinions as those reached by
the Amicus Curiae, but, if not, it would be an additional insult to
the Amicus Curiae because his report has also been submitted by the
SIT before the Trial Court, which again is a very foolish thing to
do because the report has no relevance before the Trial Court; at
the same time, the Trial Court can’t allow itself to be influenced
by the opinions reached by the Amicus Curiae. So, now if the Trial
Court reaches a conclusion different from the one reached by the
Amicus Curiae, it will be an extreme insult to the position of the
Amicus Curiae.
I think the Supreme Court has erred very badly in the order passed
by it, and now the only way out is to suo moto review its
order and reach a decision with respect to the closure report filed
by the SIT by juxtaposing the conclusions of the SIT against the
conclusions of the Amicus Curiae. If not, it is an insult of the
Bar.
If you liked this book, please checkout my another book Kerala Hugged. If you wish to send donations, please send them to ankur.mutreja@gmail.com at PayPal, to 9868893525 at PayTM, or to Mutreja@PayTM through UPI.