SC to hear Zakia Jaffri's plea against clean chit to Modi in Gujarat riots

In 2012, a Special Investigation Team filed a closure report giving a clean chit to Modi and 63 others

The Supreme Court Monday said it will hear in July a plea of Zakia Jafri, challenging the SIT's clean chit to the then Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi in connection with the 2002 Godhra riots.

A bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar listed the matter for hearing in July.

Zakia, the wife of ex-MP Ehsan Jafri who was one of the 68 killed in Ahmedabad's Gulberg society, has challenged the Gujarat High Court's October 5, 2017 order rejecting her plea against the SIT decision.

On February 8, 2012, the Special Investigation Team filed a closure report giving a clean chit to Modi and 63 others, including senior government officials, saying there was "no prosecutable evidence" against them.

The court had previously said it will also look into the application by social activist Teesta Setalvad on becoming a co-petitioner in Zakia's plea ahead of hearing the main case.

Jafri's counsel had told the apex court that a notice needs to be issued in the plea as it pertains to alleged "larger conspiracy" during February 27, 2002 and May 2002. It had also maintained that after the SIT gave a clean chit in its closure report before a trial judge, the petitioner filed a protest which was dismissed by the magistrate without considering "substantiated merits".

Jafri was among the 68 people killed at Gulberg Society on February 28, 2002, a day after the S-6 Coach of the Sabarmati Express was burnt at Godhra killing 59 people and triggering riots in Gujarat.

The plea, filed through advocate Aparna Bhat, has 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 5, 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.

It said the petitioner can approach an appropriate forum, including the magistrate's court, a division bench of the high court or the Supreme Court seeking further investigation.