Ramachandran notes that Modi can also be prosecuted under other sections of the IPC pertaining to public servants disobeying the law with the "intent to cause injury to any person" and for "promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will". Unlike the SIT, Ramachandran doesn't dismiss suspended IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt's claim that he was present at a meeting where Modi allegedly told top officials to let "Hindus vent their anger". "It would not be correct to disbelieve the version of Shri Bhatt, at this prima facie stage," he states in his report..
See also:What the amicus curiae report means for Narendra Modi
An amicus curiae (meaning friend of the court in Latin) is typically an experienced advocate who is not a party to a case who assists a court in deciding a matter by providing the bench or the judge his legal opinion in the form of a brief or a detailed treatise on the matter. In this case, the highest court of the land, Supreme Court, has appointed Raju Ramchandran as amicus curiae in this case at the time when it directed the setting up of a SIT to investigate the case. However, though not binding or advisory, the amicus curiae's report is a jolt to Narendra Modi as the report is in sharp contrast to the SIT report which had effectively let Modi off, saying that there was no material that could justify action under the law. On IPS officer Sanjeev Bhatt's claim that he was present at a meeting called by Narendra Modi on February 27, 2002, where Modi allegedly asked senior officers to go slow against rioters, SIT had questioned Bhatt's motives. But Raju Ramachandran disagrees and says Bhatt's allegations may have a basis. Bhatt himself has welcomed the amicus report saying, "I am sure that no amount of diabolical machinations on the part of the SIT or the State of Gujarat will be able to suppress the ghastly crimes that were perpetrated under the aegis of the State in 2002."
Even on the role of two senior police officers – MK Tandon, then joint commissioner of police, Ahmedabad, and PB Gondia, then DCP, Ahmedabad, the report varies from SIT report. The amicus questions their lack of action while the SIT says there is no evidence against them. Even in the case of Modi's ministers, IK Jadeja and Late Ashok Bhatt, being present in police control room in Ahmedabad a day after riots broke out, Raju Ramachandran has a different take. He says its circumstantial evidence of the Chief Minister directing, requesting or allowing them to be present.
The report of the amicus curiae, appointed by the highest court of the country, carries moral weight, especially when it questions almost every single finding of the SIT. It might be difficult for the court to not take cognisance of these differences...
Read the Full Text of Amicus Curiae Raju Ramachandran's report on the 2002 Gujarat riots:
6. The most important allegation in the complaint, which is required to be considered in detail by this Hon'ble Court, is the allegation made against the Chief Minister of Gujarat, Shri Narendra Modi. It is alleged that, in a high-level meeting held at about 11.00 P.M. on 27.02.2002 at Mr. Narendra Modi's residence, illegal instructions were issued to senior police officers and bureaucrats "not to deal with the Hindu rioting mobs". It is also alleged that the Chief Minister had influenced the police at the time of the riots, as two of his cabinet colleagues were placed in the State Police Control Room and the Ahmedabad City Police Control Room respectively on 28.02.2002. 7. The SIT, in its Preliminary Report dated 12.05.2010, concluded that there was no reliable material available to prove that Shri Narendra Modi had issued any instruction to the officers on 27.02.2002 to the effect that Hindus should be permitted to vent their anger. The said conclusion has been endorsed by the Chairman, SIT in his comments dated 14.05.2010. 8. In my note submitted to this Hon'ble Court on 20.01.2011, it was pointed out that there were a number of circumstances which required a more detailed investigation to determine if, indeed, such a instruction had been given by Shri Modi or not. It was suggested that a further investigation should be conducted under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. in the pending Gulberg Society and/or Naroda Patiya cases and the statement of Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, DIG, the then Deputy Commissioner (Intelligence) should be recorded. (The said note also indicated the aspects on which the SIT’s Preliminary Report dated 12.05.2010 could be accepted.)
Manoj Mitta on SIT’s desperation to give a clean chit to Modi
Former Supreme Court judge says SIT findings incorrect
Justice Sawant says the conclusions drawn by the SIT "are completely incorrect." "I don't agree with them," he told NDTV, adding that the findings of the probe panel are not binding on the top court. "It is for the people to compare both the reports and draw their own conclusions. It is for the Supreme Court to find the truth," he said. Justice Sawant had conducted an inquiry into the Gujarat riots in 2002 and had found Mr Modi responsible for the carnage. He had even recommended his prosecution.
CBI has told the Supreme Court that the trial of BJP leader LK Advani in the Ayodhya demolition case has to be carried on without dropping the conspiracy charge against him as the razing down of the medieval monument was part of a "single larger conspiracy". The agency, in its recent affidavit, opposed the separation of trial of eight accused leaders - Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti, Vinay Katiyar, Ashok Singhal, Giriraj Kishore, Vishnu Hari Dalmiya and Sadhvi Rithambara - from 41 others, mainly kar sevaks, allegedly involved in the demolition of the disputed structure on December 6, 1992. It said separation of the trial, which has found favour with the trial court and the Allahabad High Court, is "totally erroneous".
More news from the Parivar: BJP joins VHP to stop Muslim realty deals: