Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, who had been appointed the amicus curiae in the Gulberg Society case by the Supreme Court, in his report has clearly mentioned that “the offences which can be made out against Mr Narendra Modi, at this prima facie stage include “promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion and acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony.”
What is significant is that the amicus curiae feels that the claims of suspended IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt need to be probed further. Mr Bhatt had claimed that following the Godhra incident, Mr Modi had held a law and order review meeting at his residence with senior police officers and told them that Hindus should be allowed to “vent their anger”.
Incidentally, the SIT had rubbished Mr Bhatt’s allegations saying that he was not present at that particular meeting and that he was sharing this information nine years after the riots took place. Surprisingly, no record of the minutes of this crucial meeting was maintained but the report adds, “The phone call records do not contradict the statement given by Shri Bhatt to the SIT.”
What is important is that Mr Ramachandran states, “I disagree with the conclusion of the SIT that Shri Bhatt should be disbelieved at this stage itself. On the other hand, I am of the view that Shri Bhatt needs to be put through the test of cross-examination, as do others who deny his presence.”
The report has also highlighted another crucial issue related to the presence of two senior ministers, I.K. Jadeja and Late Ashok Bhatt, in the police control room when the riots were spreading on February 28, 2002. Contradicting the SIT findings yet again, Mr Ramachandran said though the SIT has found that they did not interfere with the police’s functioning but, “there is the possibility that the very presence of these two ministers had a dampening effect on the senior police officials”.