The supreme court took strong objection to the allegation by a rights activist that the team has been befooling courts.
The Supreme court today expressed its satisfaction about the investigation done by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) into post-Godhra riot cases of 2002 in Gujarat, but took strong exception to the allegation by a rights activist that the team has been befooling courts.
"This is not done. Our accepting the reports of the SIT then means that this court has also been fooled by the team. Such type of allegations are not acceptable. This has to be expunged from the application, otherwise it would mean we are being fooled by the SIT," a Bench headed by Justice DK Jain said about the application in which a plea has been made for the re-constitution of the team.
The remarks were made by the Bench when senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Gujarat government, said it was entertaining a "scandalous" application.
Rohatgi read out the contents of the application which said, "It is the blatant desire by the SIT to fool the courts".
Senior advocate Aspi Chenoy, appearing for rights activist Devendrabhai N Pathak, apologised to the court for the language used in the application.
"The briefing counsel should also be responsible. We will not accept such type of allegations in the application," the Bench, also comprising justices P Sathasivam and Aftab Alam, said.
The Bench said it will examine the application in January after receiving the response of senior advocate Harish Salve, who is assisting the court as amicus curiae, in nine cases of the Gujarat riots, also monitored by the team headed by former CBI chief RK Raghavan.
The submissions for reconstitution of the team was made even after the Bench said the fresh SIT report makes it clear that the trial for nine riot cases were proceeding "smoothly and normally".
The Bench said that from the report, it appears that in all the seven complaints received by it regarding threat perception and intimidation to witnesses and victims, adequate steps have been taken for their protection both at their residences and court premises.
However, Chenoy, who pressed for re-constitution of the Bench, alleged that despite the material, the team has not been carrying forward the investigation and sought re-opening of the investigations, a view which did not impress the Bench.
"Re-opening of investigation at this juncture is not possible. So far as these nine cases are concerned, the entire investigation has been done by SIT. It was never pointed out earlier...but why now?" the Bench said.
The activist claimed that in a case relating to Naroda in Ahmedabad, witnesses were initimidated in the trial court premises and a complaint was made to SIT.
However, the Bench expressed its displeasure that instead of making a written complaint with the trial court, the petitioner only made an oral complaint before it.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}