interim report after the godhra incident. this is the first head under which some of the allegations...

18COMMUNALISM COMBATAPRIL – MAY 2012

Note by the amicus curiae

1. This hon’ble court vide order dated 27.04.2009 di-rected the SIT to “examine” the complaint submitted bythe petitioner on 08.06.2006. The SIT was to “look into thematter” and give its report to this hon’ble court.

2. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, Shri AK Malhotra,former DIG, CBI, and a member of the SIT, has examinedmore than 160 witnesses and gone through a number ofdocuments as made available to him, He has given his find-ings qua the 32 allegations made by the complainant. Thechairman, SIT, has concurred with the findings of ShriMalhotra.

3. The inquiry conducted by Shri AK Malhotra was in thenature of a preliminary inquiry in which he has recordedstatements of witnesses (which are signed by the witnesses)and also collected a number of documents.

4. In his report dated 12.05.2010, Shri AK Malhotra hasinter alia recommended further investigation under Section173(8), CrPC, against (1) Shri MK Tandon, the then jointcommissioner of police, Ahmedabad city; (2) Shri PB Gondia,the then deputy commissioner of police, Ahmedabad; and(3) Shri Gordhan Zadaphiya, the then minister of state for

home, government of Gujarat. Thesubsequent investigation has beenconducted by another officer,namely Shri Himanshu Shukla, DCP,and supervised by Shri YC Modi, IGP,and member, SIT. A further report hasbeen given to this hon’ble court on26.11.2010, recommending depart-mental action against the police of-ficials.

5. I had two meetings with ShriAK Malhotra and Shri YC Modi, inDecember 2010 and January 2011. Ihave had one meeting with Ms TeestaSetalvad and Ms Aparna Bhat. Theyhave submitted a number of docu-ments which have also been exam-ined by me to the extent possible.Shri RB Sreekumar, former DGP,Gujarat, has also submitted somedocuments which have been consid-ered.

6. The major allegation in thecomplaint made by the complain-ant relates to the alleged involve-ment of Shri Narendra Modi, the

chief minister of the state of Gujarat, in the communal riotswhich took place in the city of Ahmedabad (and elsewhere)immediately after the Godhra incident. This is the first headunder which some of the allegations can be classified. Thesecond head of allegations relate to the alleged role of thepolice officials at the time of the riots, the faulty investi-gation of the riot cases and the faulty prosecution of theaccused. There are a number of other allegations which havebeen classified by me as falling in the third category.

7. Though the SIT has concluded that there is no mate-rial to indicate that Shri Narendra Modi, the chief minister,had issued any instructions to the officers on 27.02.2002to permit the Hindus to give vent to the anger of the ma-jority community, there are a number of circumstances whichprima facie indicate that the matter requires a detailed in-vestigation to examine the role of Shri Modi immediatelyafter the Godhra incident to find out if there is any culpa-bility to the extent that a message was conveyed that thestate machinery would not step in to prevent the commu-nal riots. Some of the circumstances which justify a moredetailed investigation into this aspect have been separatelyenumerated in Chart A enclosed herewith (pertaining to thefirst head).

Interim reportThe interim report by amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran placed before the Supreme Court, January 20, 2011

PROSECUTE MODI

Gujarat 2002; An ongoing rampage

COMMUNALISM COMBATAPRIL – MAY 2012

19

8. It would be appropriate if this aspect of the matter isexamined by way of further investigation under Section173(8), CrPC, in the pending Gulberg Society and/or NarodaPatiya cases. The SIT may consider all evidence, includingbut not limited to the statement of Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, thethen deputy commissioner (intelligence), and the recordsof the state government at the relevant time. Since a statu-tory investigation would confer powers under the CrPC tothe investigating officer, the investigation would be effec-tive. I am fully conscious that nearly nine years have passedsince the incident but the inquiry report of the SIT in re-spect of the allegations throws up a number of unansweredquestions. It would also appear that Ms Setalvad wanted togive further evidence which could not be looked into bythe SIT, as the report was under preparation. These couldalso be looked into by the SIT.

9. In so far as the role of certain police officials andpublic prosecutors is concerned, the SIT has found the con-duct of certain police officers and public prosecutors to bedeficient. The recommendations of the SIT and my sugges-tions are contained in Chart B appended to this note (per-taining to the second head).

10. The other allegations which arefound to be proved (or not proved) bythe SIT, and my suggestions to thishon’ble court in relation to those find-ings, are enclosed in Chart C appendedto this note (pertaining to the thirdhead).

Chart A: Observations onfindings of the SIT

Allegations (Complainants)I. & IV. A statement was made by

Shri Narendra Modi on 27.02.2002 ina meeting in his residence instructingsenior officers to allow the Hindus to give vent to theiranger. This is also supported by late Shri Haren Pandya.

Findings (SIT)� 1. None of the officers that attended the meeting on

27.02.2002 have confirmed the alleged statement made byShri Narendra Modi (p. 19); 2. The statement of Shri RBSreekumar is hearsay (p. 19); 3. Sanjiv Bhatt, DC (intelli-gence), was not present at the meeting (p. 19); 4. None ofthe cabinet ministers, including Shri Haren Pandya, attendedthe meeting on 27.02.2002. Testimony of Shri Haren Pandyabefore the Citizen’s Tribunal is unreliable (p. 19).

Observations (Amicus Curiae)� It would be impossible to get anyone present in the

meeting on 27.02.2002 to speak against Shri Modi, espe-cially the bureaucracy and police officials.

� The other circumstances would also have to be takeninto account. There is nothing to show that the chief min-ister intervened on 28.02.2002 when the riots were taking

place to prevent the riots. The movement of Shri Modi andthe instructions given by him on 28.02.2002 would havebeen decisive to prove that he had taken all steps for theprotection of the minorities but this evidence is not there.Neither the chief minister nor his personal officials havestated what he did on 28.02.2002. Neither the top policenor bureaucrats have spoken about any decisive action bythe chief minister.

� It may not be correct to rule out the presence of SanjivBhatt, IPS, DC (intelligence), since ADGP (intelligence) ShriGC Raiger was not available. There is no reason for him tomake a wrong statement. He was willing to make a state-ment if he was protected from legal repercussions of dis-closing what transpired in the meeting.

� It is difficult to believe that when the chief ministercame back after the Godhra trip, no minister was present athis residence. Hence it may not be totally unbelievable thatShri Haren Pandya was present. Shri Haren Pandya is unfor-tunately dead but the statements made by late Shri HarenPandya to Justice PB Sawant (retd) and Justice H. Suresh(retd) can be used even if his statement has not been for-mally reproduced in writing by the Citizen’s Tribunal.

� It has also been brought outthat an inquiry was made from thechief minister’s office as to theidentity of the minister who haddeposed before the Citizen’s Tribu-nal and that the State IntelligenceBureau had verified the identity asthat of Shri Haren Pandya. This alsogives some corroboration to thefact that the chief minister’s officewas uncomfortable with the disclo-sure made by an unidentified min-ister to the Citizen’s Tribunal.

� The statement of Shri RBSreekumar cannot be discarded as

hearsay, in the light of Section 6 of the Evidence Act.� Another aspect is the fact that Vishwa Hindu Parishad

(VHP) general secretary, Jaideep Patel, and Shri Modi wereat Godhra on 27.02.2002. The statement of Jaideep Patelthat he did not meet Shri Narendra Modi at Godhra does notinspire confidence. This has to be examined, as the mamlatdar[executive magistrate] would not have handed over the deadbodies to a non-government person i.e. Jaideep Patel untiland unless somebody very high told him to do so.

AllegationsV. That cabinet ministers Shri IK Jadeja and Shri Ashok

Bhatt were positioned in the DGP’s office and Ahmedabadcity control room on 28.02.2002.

Findings� The SIT concludes that this was a “controversial deci-

sion” taken by the government to place two ministers inthe DGP’s office and Ahmedabad city control room. How-

It would be impossible toget anyone present in themeeting on February 27,

2002 to speak against Modi,especially the bureaucracy

and police officials…Neither the top police norbureaucrats have spoken

about any decisive action bythe chief minister

AMICUS: INTERIM REPORT


ever, the SIT concludes that there is no evidence that thetwo ministers passed on any instructions to the police todeal with riots in a particular manner. Therefore the allega-tion is only partially proved as per the SIT (p. 32).

Observations� The positioning of two cabinet ministers having noth-

ing to do with the home portfolio in the office of the DGPand the state police control room respectively is anothercircumstance which reflects that there was a direct instruc-tion from the chief minister. Though Shri Jadeja says that hehad gone to the DGP’s office on instructions of Shri GordhanZadaphiya, MoS (home), this is highly unbelievable. It is ob-vious that the chief minister had positioned these two min-isters in highly sensitive places, which should not have beendone. In fact, these two ministers could have taken activesteps to defuse the riots but they did nothing, which speaksvolumes about the decision to let the riots happen. It doesnot appear that these two ministers immediately called thechief minister and told him about the situation at Gulbergand other places.

� The SIT merely relied uponthe statements of the police of-ficers to conclude that these twoministers did not give any instruc-tions to the police department butit appears highly unlikely that twocabinet ministers of the govern-ment of Gujarat would have notgiven some kind of directions whenthe chief minister had directedthem to remain present.

� It is obvious that the twoministers were fully aware of thedeveloping situation in GulbergSociety, Naroda Patiya, etc in Ahmedabad city. They wereduty-bound to convey the situation to the chief ministerand were required to do everything possible to save loss oflives. If the stand of the chief minister, that these two min-isters were positioned so as to effectively control the lawand order situation, is correct then there would have been afar quicker action to control the riots in Gulberg Societyand Naroda Patiya at least.

� No tangible action seems to have been taken by thepolice high-ups in the police department, namely the com-missioner of police, to control the riots at Gulberg Society.Gulberg Society is not very far away from the office of thecommissioner of police, Ahmedabad.

AllegationsXI. The allegation is that Shri Narendra Modi did not

visit the riot-affected areas of Ahmedabad immediatelythough he visited Godhra on the day of the incident.

Findings� The SIT has come to the conclusion that the action of

the chief minister appeared to be discriminatory (p. 67).

Observations� This is one of the circumstances which indicate that

the hon’ble chief minister had not taken enough steps toensure that riots in Ahmedabad city were immediately con-trolled by his direct intervention.

AllegationsXII. It is alleged that on 01.03.2002 Shri Narendra Modi

said in a television interview that the reaction of the Hin-dus was due to the action by the Muslims, which seems tojustify the riot.

Findings� The SIT has come to the conclusion that the reaction

of the chief minister to violence at Gulberg Society andNaroda Patiya was not serious. However, the SIT has con-cluded this would not be sufficient enough to make out acase against Shri Modi (p. 69).

Observations� The observation of Shri Modi in a television interview

on 01.03.2002 clearly indicatesthat there was an attempt to jus-tify the violence against the mi-nority community. This indicatesa certain approach. The statementmade by Shri Modi cannot beseen in isolation. It has to beseen in conjunction with otherfacts mentioned hereinabovewhich provides sufficient justi-fication for a detailed investiga-tion in the matter.

Chart B: Observations onfindings of the SIT

AllegationsVII. The allegation is that 13 IAS/IPS officers were re-

warded for their support during the post-Godhra riots.Findings� The finding of the SIT is that there was nothing to

indicate that the 13 officers had been rewarded with postingsfor their support to the chief minister. However, at page 44to 49, the SIT had concluded that the conduct of Shri MKTandon, the joint commissioner of police, Sector II,Ahmedabad, was not satisfactory. It is also mentioned thathe received calls from Jaideep Patel and Mayaben Kodnani,who are accused in the Naroda case. Similarly, the SIT hadconcluded that the role played by Shri PB Gondia, DCP,Zone IV, was suspicious and he also received calls fromMayaben Kodnani and Jaideep Patel. In the subsequent re-port dated 26.11.2010, it has been advised that depart-mental action be taken against them.

Observations� The major massacres in Ahmedabad city took place in

Gulberg Housing Society, in Naroda Patiya and Naroda Gaon.

It is obvious that the chiefminister had positioned these two

ministers (IK Jadeja and AshokBhatt) in highly sensitive places,

which should not have beendone… these ministers could

have taken active steps to defusethe riots but they did nothing,

which speaks volumes about thedecision to let the riots happen

PROSECUTE MODI


21

Hence the actions of Shri MK Tandon, the joint commis-sioner of police, Sector II, and that of PB Gondia, the DCP,Zone IV, cannot be termed as mere failure to discharge theirduties, as both the officers were not present at any of theseplaces despite the fact that they were fully aware of the pos-sibility of loss of lives. It appears that if these officers hadbeen present at the spot or had taken effective steps in time,the massacres could have been avoided and lives could havebeen saved. A case of criminal negligence is made out againstthese two officers. Further, they have received calls from ac-cused who are facing trial in the Naroda massacre i.e. MayabenKodnani and Jaideep Patel. Therefore it does not appear to bea simple case of mere dereliction of duty. Section 304A, IPC,would be squarely attracted in such a case.

� In so far as promotion of other IAS and IPS officers isconcerned, the view takenby the SIT seems to be ac-ceptable.

AllegationsIX. The allegation is

that the government ofGujarat has been seriouslyindicted by this hon’blecourt due to fresh inves-tigation in the BilkeesBano case by the CBI andretrial of the Best Bakerycase outside the state ofGujarat.

Findings� The SIT has con-

cluded that the trials inboth the cases are over.Some accused have beenconvicted and some ac-cused have been acquit-ted and the appeals arepending before the highcourt.

� The SIT has recom-mended that the matter requires to be handled by the stateof Gujarat to take departmental action for major penaltyagainst K. Kumaraswamy, Jt CP, Baroda city, and RamjibhaiPargi, former ACP [assistant commissioner of police], in lightof observations of the learned sessions judge, Greater Bom-bay. It also recommends setting up of a committee by thegovernment of Gujarat to fix responsibility on the officials(p. 238).

Observations� The investigative agencies let off the accused in the

Bilkees Bano case. If the CBI had not stepped in, the ac-cused would have gone unpunished. Similarly, in the BestBakery case, it appears that the prosecution was done in ashoddy manner to protect the accused.

� The recommendations of the SIT that the governmentof Gujarat should set up a committee perhaps needs to bereconsidered. It would be appropriate if these two cases areexamined by the SIT so as to fix responsibility on the inves-tigating/prosecuting officials and suitable directions canthereafter be issued by this hon’ble court to take actioneither under the Indian Penal Code (depending on whetherit reveals offences under the IPC) or departmental action formisconduct. The acts of the investigating/prosecuting agen-cies may attract Section 201 of the IPC.

AllegationsX. The allegation is that the investigations were partial

in nature and there was prejudice against the riot victims.Findings

� The finding of the SITis that supplementarycharge sheets have beenfiled in the Gulberg Soci-ety case and Naroda Patiyacase but that by itself can-not be a reason to hold thatinvestigations were con-ducted in a partial manner(p. 67).

Observations� The grievance of the

petitioner may not surviveafter the SIT has conductedfresh investigations but itwould be unjust to sparethose people who conductedpartisan or negligent inves-tigation. Hence this issueneeds to be addressed. Therole of the officials in theCrime Branch, especially DCPVanzara and ACP Chudasamaneeds to be inquired into, es-pecially in light of the state-ment of Rahul Sharma, DCP,

control room, Ahmedabad. To that extent, the finding of the SITis not acceptable.

AllegationsXV. The allegation is that pro-VHP lawyers were appointed

as public prosecutors which had an adverse effect on thetrial of the riot accused.

Findings� The finding of the SIT is that though the political

affiliation of the advocates weighed with the governmentin their appointment as public prosecutors, there is no spe-cific allegation in showing favour by them to any of theaccused persons involved in the riots either at the time ofgrant of bail or during the trial.


Jaideep Patel and Maya Kodnani: Spearheads of the Naroda massacres


Observations� The issue may not survive because of the intervention

by this hon’ble court whereby public prosecutors have beenappointed in an independent manner. However, this maybe required to be looked into further in light of the subse-quent letter of Ms Teesta Setalvad (p. 244).

AllegationsXXI & XXII. These allegations relate to inaction against

senior police officers, as they did not carry out proper in-vestigation of riot-related cases, especially the Bilkees Banorape case.

Findings� The SIT has stated that the allegations were vague

and general and there was nothing against any specific of-ficer. It is further stated that the CBI had not recommendedany action against Shri Jadeja, SP, Dahod, in the BilkeesBano case (p. 101).

Observations� In so far as Shri Jadeja is concerned, the documents

relating to the Bilkees Bano case need to be scrutinised bythe SIT. The basis on which the CBI has concluded that nodepartmental action is requiredto be taken against Mr Jadeja hasto be examined before any con-clusion is drawn.

AllegationsXXIII. The allegation is that

the CD relating to telephonic callsof BJP leaders and police officerswere not looked into by the in-vestigating officers of Gulberg So-ciety and Naroda Patiya.

Findings� The SIT has found that Shri

Tarun Barot, the investigating officer of the case and ShriGS Singhal, ACP, Crime Branch, intentionally did not exam-ine the cellphone records though it was available to themand therefore major penalty departmental proceedingsshould be initiated against them (105).

Observations� The government of Gujarat may be directed to take

departmental actions against these two officers immedi-ately within a time-bound manner.

AllegationsXXV. The allegation is that the police at Gulberg So-

ciety and Naroda Patiya did not take action and acted asmute spectators to the acts of lawlessness. Real culpritswere not arrested and no preventive action was taken.

Findings� The SIT has found this allegation to be incorrect.Observations� Shri MK Tandon, Jt CP, said that he reached

Gulberg Society at 4:00 p.m. and ordered CISF [Cen-

tral Industrial Security Force] firing. It is not clearwhy the CISF could not reach earlier though it had beensent at 1:45 p.m. It is not clear why the other officers,namely GD Solanki, DySP [deputy superintendent of po-lice], etc, could not reach Gulberg Society on time. Itappears that nothing was done by the police personnelpresent at Gulberg Society and Naroda Patiya to dispelthe gathering mob. It would appear that the mob wasbeing permitted to gather at these two places. Hencethere is substance in the allegation of police inaction.

� It is not clear what action was taken by Shri MT Rana,then ACP, G Division, who was present at Naroda Patiya, toprevent the mishap from happening. This aspect also needsto be looked into.

Specific recommendations for the SIT

1. Shri MK Tandon and Shri PB Gondia be prosecutedunder Section 304A, IPC.

2. The SIT may examine the role of the investigatingagency in the Bilkees Bano rape case and make recom-mendations to this hon’ble court, whether it reveals com-

mission of any criminal offenceor misconduct.

3. The SIT may be directed tolook into the role of the CrimeBranch officers, namely DCPVanzara and ACP Chudasama asto their role in the investigationof the Gulberg Society andNaroda Patiya cases.

4. The SIT may examine therole of the prosecuting agencyin the Best Bakery case and rec-ommend suitable action againstthose who are responsible.

5. The SIT may look into the role of police officials inthe Gulberg Society and Naroda Patiya cases (apart fromthose who are already facing charges).

Specific recommendations in relation to thegovernment of Gujarat

1. Departmental action, as suggested by the SIT, be takenagainst K. Kumaraswamy, the then Jt CP, Baroda city, andRamjibhai Pargi, former ACP.

2. As recommended by the SIT, departmental actionbe taken against Shri Tarun Barot, inspector, and Shri GSSinghal, ACP, Crime Branch, for faulty investigation ofthe riots cases.

Chart C: Observations on findings of the SIT

AllegationsII. Alleged decision of the chief minister to transport

dead bodies from Godhra to Ahmedabad with a view to pa-rade them.

The major massacres inAhmedabad city took place in

Gulberg Housing Society, in NarodaPatiya and Naroda Gaon. The

actions of the then jointcommissioner of police, MK

Tandon, and then DCP, PB Gondia,cannot be termed as mere failure

to discharge their duties

PROSECUTE MODI


23

Findings� The SIT has concluded that the decision was taken with

a view that the train was heading towards Ahmedabad. There-fore the relatives of the deceased would be residents ofAhmedabad and nearby areas and it would be easy for themto collect the bodies. The dead bodies were not paraded asalleged. Therefore the allegation is not established (p. 23).

Observations� The findings of the SIT appear to be justified.

AllegationsIII. It is alleged by Shri RB Sreekumar that there were a

number of verbal instructions given by the chief ministerwhich were illegal.

Findings� It is concluded by the SIT that the allegation of Shri

RB Sreekumar is basedupon the entries madeby Shri Sreekumar inhis register which wasa personal registermaintained by him inwhich he allegedly re-corded the illegal in-structions received byhim. The SIT had statedthat there is doubtabout the genuinenessof the entries made byShri Sreekumar in theregister, in view of thefact that this registerwas revealed for thefirst time in 2005 (af-ter the supersession ofShri Sreekumar by thegovernment) and thereis further no corrobora-tion of the statementsmade by Shri RBSreekumar from anyother source (p. 28).

Observations� It may not be possible to prove the so-called illegal

instructions in absence of any other material except thestatements of Shri RB Sreekumar himself. Hence though thefinding of the SIT be accepted, it may not be appropriate tosay that the register is motivated.

AllegationsVI. The allegation is regarding the transfer of six police

officers by the hon’ble chief minister during the thick ofthe riots to facilitate placement of pliable officers.

Findings� The finding of the SIT is that this allegation could not

be proved (p. 33-36).

Observations� It does not appear that any of the six officers were

deliberately posted out with a view to facilitate place-ment of pliable officers so as to encourage the riots.Hence we may accept the SIT’s recommendations. Thereare three instances which are far too remote to lead toany conclusion.

AllegationsVIII. The allegation is that no follow-up action was taken

up by the Gujarat government on the reports sent by ShriRB Sreekumar.

Findings� The finding of the SIT is that the file of the state

government relating to the concerned subject had notbeen produced and therefore it was not clear how the

government dealt withthe letters of Shri RBSreekumar. The SIT fur-ther observes that fromthe evidence of wit-nesses, it is incorrect tosay that the letters ofShri RB Sreekumar werenot acted upon by thegovernment (p. 60).

Observations� The findings of the

SIT may be correct. Theletters of Shri RBSreekumar were writtenafter the riots had got over.Secondly, the contents ofthese letters appear to beof general nature. The sub-sequent developmentshave supported the find-ings of the SIT that someaction was taken by thegovernment. Hence wemay accept the SIT’s rec-ommendation.

AllegationsXIII. The allegation is that Shri Narendra Modi did not

give a direction declaring the bandh called by the VHP on28.02.2002 illegal.

Findings� The SIT has found that the bandh was not declared

illegal by the government of Gujarat and hence the allega-tion is proved.

Observations� This issue does not have a very material bearing. Noth-

ing would turn upon the fact whether the bandh was de-clared illegal or not.


“Service, Protection, Peace”: Belying the badge


The SIT may examine the roleof the investigating agency in

the Bilkees Bano rape case andthe role of the Crime Branchofficers, namely DCP Vanzara

and ACP Chudasama as to theirrole in the investigation of the

Gulberg Society and NarodaPatiya cases

AllegationsXIV. The allegation is that there was undue delay in de-

ployment of the army.Findings� The SIT has come to a conclusion that there was no

undue delay in deployment of the army.Observations� The factual records are the matter of investigation and

if the records are correct then the SIT finding may also becorrect.

AllegationsXVI. The allegation is that police officials were not trans-

ferred until the arrival of Shri KPS Gill.Findings� The SIT has found this allegation is not correct.Observations� The finding of the SIT may be accepted.

AllegationsXVII. The allegation is that no

action was taken against the mediafor publishing communally incitingreports.

Findings� The SIT has found the allega-

tion to be true.Observations� Action should have been taken

against the media but due to lapseof more than eight years, it is notadvisable to pursue this matter any further.

AllegationsXVIII. This allegation relates to misleading reports sub-

mitted by the state home department regarding normalcyin the state so as to persuade the Election Commission tohold early elections.

Findings� The SIT has concluded that the allegation is not con-

clusively established in view of the fact that the electionswere subsequently held within three-four months, in De-cember 2002, and passed off peacefully.

Observations� This issue may not survive any further and it would not

serve any purpose to examine this issue in detail. Hence itis recommended that this issue be dropped.

AllegationsXIX & XX. That Shri GC Murmu, home secretary, was de-

puted to tutor the witnesses who were to depose before theNanavati Commission.

Findings� The SIT has found this allegation is not established, as

the version given by Shri RB Sreekumar is motivated andcannot be relied upon (p. 97).

Observations� The allegation is found not proved by the SIT, which

recommendation may be accepted. It may not be justifiedto say that the version of Shri Sreekumar is motivated.

AllegationsXXIV. The allegation is that the Gujarat government did not

provide conducive atmosphere for rehabilitation of riot victims.Findings� The SIT has found this allegation is not correct, as it

believes that the government did everything for rehabilita-tion (p. 117).

Observations� This conclusion may be ac-

cepted.

AllegationsXXVI. This allegation relates to

non-preparation of minutes ofmeetings.

Findings� The SIT has found that in the

Gujarat government, no minutes ofmeetings are prepared in case of lawand order review meets.

Observations� Since the minutes of the meetings have not been pre-

pared, nothing would come out in further investigation. Inany event, the minutes of the meetings would never be pre-pared to implicate any minister/official directly or indi-rectly. Therefore this issue can be closed.

AllegationsXXVII. This allegation relates to not taking action against

officers for filing incorrect affidavits before the NanavatiCommission.

Findings� The SIT has concluded that this matter has to be dealt

with by the Nanavati Commission which has still to submitits report.

Observations� The view taken by the SIT appears to be correct.

AllegationsXXVIII. It is alleged that the review of post-trial cases

PROSECUTE MODI

interim report after the godhra incident. this is the first head under which some of the allegations...

Documents