New Delhi: The Supreme Court fixed Tuesday for hearing April 13 the plea of Zakia Jafri, wife of slain MP Ehsan Jafri. In the plea Zakia Jafri has challenged the SIT’s clean chit to then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in the 2002 riots. The Supreme Court said it would not entertain any request of adjournment on the next date.
A bench headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar took note of the request of senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Jafri, that the matter be heard sometime in April. Sibal sought adjournment as several advocates are busy in the Maratha reservation case being heard presently by a five-judge Constitution bench.
However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Gujarat government, opposed the plea for adjournment. He sought hearing of the case next week. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the SIT (Special Investigation Team) also opposed the letter for adjournment, and said the matter should be decided.
“Put this case for hearing on April 13. No request for adjournment will be entertained,” ordered the bench which also comprised Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari.
The top court, in February last year, had fixed the case for hearing April 14, 2020. It had then said the matter had been adjourned many times and will have to be heard someday.
Prior to this, Jafri’s counsel had told the apex court that a notice needs to be issued in the plea as it relates to an alleged ‘larger conspiracy’ from February 27, 2002 to May 2002.
Ehsan was among the 68 people killed at Gulberg Society in Ahmedabad February 28, 2002. This massacre came a day after the S-6 Coach of the Sabarmati Express was burnt at Godhra killing 59 people and triggering riots in Gujarat.
The SIT filed a closure report February 8, 2012 giving a clean chit to Modi and 63 others, including senior government officials. The probe body said there was ‘no prosecutable evidence’ against them.
Zakia filed a petition in the apex court in 2018 challenging the Gujarat High Court’s October 5, 2017 order which rejected her plea against the decision of the SIT.
The plea also maintained that after the SIT gave a clean chit in its closure report before a trial judge, the petitioner filed a protest. However, it was dismissed by the magistrate without considering ‘substantiated merits’.
It also said the high court ‘failed to appreciate’ the petitioner’s complaint which was independent of the Gulberg case registered at Meghaninagar Police Station.
The high court in its October 2017 order said the SIT probe was monitored by the Supreme Court. However, it partly allowed Zakia’s petition as far as its demand of a further investigation was concerned.