New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned a plea of Zakia Jafri, challenging the clean chit given by Special Investigation Team (SIT) to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and several others in 2002 Gujarat riots, to the third week of January.
Zakia Jafri is the widow of former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri. Ehsan Jafri was among 69 people killed in the Gulbarg Society massacre.
A bench headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar adjourned the matter after counsels appearing for Jafri and anther applicant Teesta Setalvad, sought time to file more documents, news agency ANI reported.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Jafri, asked for time to file convenience volumes consisting of direct evidence to establish a conspiracy.
The Zakia Jafri case, challenging the lower courts (Guj HC and Magistrate) orders refusing to go into the wider conspiracy behind the Gujarat 2002 genocidal carnage will now be heard in the second half of January 2019. The CJP legal team has been providing legal aid since 2006.
— Citizens for Justice and Peace (@cjpindia) December 3, 2018
SIT gives a clean chit to Modi
The SIT conducted the investigation into the 2002 Gujarat riots and gave a clean chit to the then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, other top politicians and bureaucrats. The clean chit was given citing lack of “prosecutable evidence” against them.
Zakia challenges SIT’s clean chit
Zakia approached the Supreme Court to Challenge the Gujarat High Court’s order dated October 5, 2017 that upheld SIT’s clean chit.
Zakia approached the Supreme Court alleging a “larger conspiracy” in the riots.
The Gujarat High Court had upheld the magisterial court’s order, accepting the SIT’s closure report.
Earlier, Zakia had approached the Gujarat High Court in 2014 after the magisterial court rejected the petition challenging the SIT report.
In her petition to the Supreme Court, Zakia has stated: “Grant ad-interim order to Special Investigation Team (SIT) to carry out further investigation under section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P. C.) in regard to the petitioner’s complaint dated June 8, 2006 and the evidence placed before the learned through the protest petition dated April 15, 2013.”