The Hindu : Supreme Court stays proceedings in 10 Godhra-related cases

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Nov 22, 2003

Front Page

Front Page

Supreme Court stays proceedings in 10 Godhra-related cases

By J. Venkatesan

New Delhi Nov. 21. Disapproving of the manner in which the Narendra Modi Government in Gujarat was conducting the trial of 10 Godhra-related cases, the Supreme Court today stayed all further proceedings in them.

The cases are a fallout of the Godhra train carnage in Gujarat on February 27, 2002 when the State witnessed large-scale communal violence in which hundreds of people were killed.

A three-judge Bench, comprising the Chief Justice V.N. Khare, Justice S.B. Sinha and Justice A.R. Lakshmanan, stayed the proceedings on a petition from the National Human Rights Commission seeking the transfer of these cases for trial outside Gujarat.

The NHRC had sought the transfer of trial in all major cases — such as Godhra, Best Bakery, Gulbarga Society, Naroda Patia and Sardarpur — in which hundreds of people were killed, to neighbouring Maharashtra or any other State, apprehending gross miscarriage of justice.

The Bench gave two weeks' time to the Narendra Modi Government to file a status report in all these cases.

The Bench asked the Gujarat Government to respond to suggestions made by the amicus curiae, Harish Salve, that a special investigation team headed by a retired High Court Judge be constituted to look into all the cases independently without the State's interference and report directly to the Supreme Court whether appeals in the cases which ended in acquittals were necessary or not.

When Mr. Salve narrated incident after incident of "gross miscarriage of justice'' and how the State had not preferred any appeal, the Chief Justice said: "If this is the state of affairs, then we will transfer all cases outside the State.''

The Chief Justice told the Additional Solicitor General, Mukul Rohtagi, appearing for Gujarat, "Don't you know that it is the duty of the State to file an appeal in such cases? Why did you not come to this court? He said: "Several times, High Courts might err, but is it not the duty of the State to come in appeal? How many times should we remind you of your duty?''

Mr. Rohtagi said that, "since bail was granted to an accused by the High Court exercising its discretionary power, how can the State Government be blamed for the same?" He further said that it would not be possible to prefer a special leave petition against every interim order.

The Bench then fixed December 19 for further hearing and monitoring of the case.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Front Page