New Delhi: The Gujarat Government has opposed in the Supreme Court shifting outside the State 17 cases arising out of eight major incidents relating to the Godhra riots.

The cases include four Godhra-related incidents; Gulberg Society/Chamanpura; Naroda Patiya and Naroda Gaon; Sardarpura town, Mehsana district; two Panchamahals district cases; Sesan, Banaskantha district; Abasana and cases pertaining to Ode in Anand district.

A three-judge Bench comprising Justices K.G. Balakrishnan, Lokeshwar Singh Panta and D.K. Jain was hearing petitions filed by the National Human Rights Commission, social activist Teesta Setalvad and some non-governmental organisations seeking reinvestigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation and shifting of the cases for trial outside Gujarat as was done in the Best Bakery case.

Cites Lalu case

Citing the apex court judgment in the Lalu Prasad case, Gujarat said: "PIL [public interest litigation] is totally foreign to pending criminal proceedings and monitoring of pending trial is a subversion of criminal law."

It was clear from this judgment that once a charge sheet was filed in the competent court after completion of investigation, monitoring could not be done, said counsel Sourav Kripal. Contending that the issue of maintainability of the transfer petitions should be decided, he sought dismissal of the petitions.

Amicus curiae Harish Salve wanted the court to lay down proper guidelines on the rights of victims in a criminal case. He said larger issues such as the extent of witness protection that could be granted and whether the apex court could issue directions to the trial court bypassing the procedure contemplated under the Criminal Procedure Code were to be decided in this case.

Senior counsel K.T.S. Tulsi, appearing for the accused, said: "If a person is not satisfied with the investigation, he has to approach the trial court. The Cr.PC can take care of every situation and all the issues raised by the petitioners are to be addressed only before the trial court. The procedure cannot be short-circuited. The Supreme Court cannot invent a new procedure and trial can proceed only under the established procedure."

Bench's poser

The Bench told counsel, "under normal circumstances, what you say is right. Here the allegations are against the State. The Cr.PC is completely forgotten; FIRs not filed; wrong persons included as accused; post-mortem was not conducted on bodies, which were buried; doctors gave false evidence, etc."

The Bench asked counsel, "Is this court powerless? When the criminal justice system in a State is in peril, it can intervene in the public interest. We will not allow the administration of justice to derail." Counsel replied, "It derailed because of the interveners."

The Bench asked Mr. Salve to give a summary of the cases and offer suggestions on the larger issues to be decided, including maintainability of the transfer petitions. It posted the cases to February 20, 2007.

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