SC Dismisses Zakia Jafri’s Plea Against SIT Clean Chit To Narendra Modi In 2002 Gujarat Riots Larger Conspiracy Case
Background of the Case
The case relates to the 2002 Gujarat riots that broke out after the Godhra train burning incident.
Zakia Jafri, widow of Congress leader Ehsan Jafri (who was killed during the riots in Gulberg Society, Ahmedabad), filed a petition alleging a larger conspiracy behind the riots.
She argued that the then Chief Minister Narendra Modi and several senior officials had a role in allowing or abetting the violence.
The Supreme Court–appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) investigated these allegations and in 2012 gave a "clean chit" to Modi and others, saying there was no prosecutable evidence of conspiracy.
Zakia Jafri challenged this SIT report first before a Magistrate, then in the Gujarat High Court, and finally in the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Decision (2022)
The Supreme Court dismissed Zakia Jafri’s plea, upholding the SIT’s clean chit to Modi and others.
Key points from the judgment:
SIT’s Investigation Found No Conspiracy
The Court said that the SIT investigated thoroughly, including allegations of a larger conspiracy, and found no material evidence against Modi or state officials.
Allegations of conspiracy were found to be based on suspicions and hearsay, not supported by credible material.
Magistrate and High Court Orders Were Correct
The Court held that the Magistrate (who had accepted SIT’s report) and the Gujarat High Court (which upheld it) had not committed any error.
No Ground to Doubt SIT’s Findings
The Court stated that SIT was constituted under the directions of the Supreme Court itself, included senior officers, and was monitored by the Court.
Hence, its findings carried weight and could not be casually discarded.
Role of Protest Petition
Zakia Jafri had filed a "protest petition" against the SIT’s closure report.
The Court held that after proper consideration, the Magistrate rightly rejected it since no prosecutable case was made out.
Important Case Law Principles Applied
State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma (1992)
– Courts cannot direct prosecution on the basis of suspicion; there must be prima facie evidence.
Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010)
– In conspiracy cases, direct evidence is rare; however, there must be strong circumstantial evidence. Here, such evidence was absent.
Amitbhai Anil Chandra Shah v. CBI (2013)
– The Court reiterated that a Magistrate can only proceed if sufficient material exists; mere allegations cannot force a trial.
Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979)
– At the stage of deciding whether to prosecute, the Court must see if a prima facie case exists, not just suspicion.
Supreme Court’s Conclusion
The Court said that the SIT had already examined all materials and no evidence supported the theory of a larger conspiracy.
It dismissed Zakia Jafri’s plea, effectively closing the door on prosecution against Narendra Modi in connection with the Gujarat riots conspiracy allegations.
✅ In short: The Supreme Court ruled that the SIT’s clean chit to Modi and others in the Gujarat riots conspiracy case was valid because no credible evidence of conspiracy was found. Suspicion alone cannot be the basis for prosecution.
RELATED Blog
0 comments