National Human Rights Commission v. State Of Gujarat And Others, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

(Record of Proceedings),Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 109 of 2003 with Crl. MPs Nos. 10719, 7078, 7827, 8193-94, 11668, 11689, 4782 of 2004, 3741-42, 6864 of 2004, 9236 of 2005, 6767 of 2006, 7824 of 2007 in WP (Crl.) No. 109 of 2003, D17953 of 2003, TPs (Crl.) Nos. 194-202 & 326-29 of 2003, SLP (C) No. 7951 of 2002, SLPs (Crl.) Nos. 4409, 5309 of 2003, WP (Crl.) No. 216 of 2003, TPs (Crl.) Nos. 66-72, 43 of 2004, WP (Crl.) No. 118 of 2003, TPs (Crl.) Nos. 233-34 of 2004, WPs (Crl.) Nos. 37-52 of 2002, 284 of 2003, Crl. MPs No. 6767 of 2006 in Nos. 3741-42 of 2004 in WP (Crl.) No. 109 of 2003, Crl. MP No. 4485 of 2006 in SLP (Crl.) No. 3770 of 2003, decided on March 26, 2008

Disposition

remanded

Attorney(S)

Harish N. Salve (Amicus Curiae), Senior Advocate [Bhargava V. Desai (Amicus Curiae), Rahul Gupta, Ms Reema Sharma, Sanjay Parekh, Indu Malhotra, Shilpa Gupta, Gopal, Umed Singh Gulia-in-person, Amit Singh Chauhan, Ejaz Maqbool, Huzffa Ahmadi, Ms Aparna Bhat, P. Ramesh Kumar, Anand Grover, Ms Lalit Mohini, Naveen R. Nath and Ms Shobha, Advocates] for the Petitioner;
Vikas Singh, Additional Solicitor General (Ms Sandhya Goswami and Ms Sushma Suri, Advocates) for the Union of India;
Fakhruddin and Kazi Mohd. Ali, Senior Advocates (K.N Madhusoodhanan, R. Sathish, Mohd. Izhar Alam, Kazim Ali, M.P Singh, Dr. Nafis A. Siddiqui, Advocates) for State of Mizoram;
Anil Shrivastav and Ritu Raj, Advocates, for State of Arunachal Pradesh;
A. Mariarputham and Ms Aruna Mathur (for M/s Arputham, Aruna & Co.), Advocates, for State of Sikkim;
Sanjay Parikh, Ms Anitha Shenoy, S. Udaya Kr. Sagar, Ms Bina Madhavan (for M/s Lawyer's Knit & Co.), Manish Kumar and Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, Advocates, for NHRC;
V.G Pragasam, S.J Aristotle, Prabu Rama Subramanian and Dr. Meera Agarwal, Advocates, for State of Tamil Nadu and UT of Pondicherry;
Arun Jaitley and Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Advocates (Ms Hemantika Wahi, Saurav Kripal, Ms Pinky, Ms Jesal, Manjit Singh and T.V George, Advocates) for State of Gujarat;
Kh. Nobin Singh, David Rao, Tarun Jamwal, S. Biswajit Meitei and Vijay Prakash, Advocates, for State of Manipur;
S. Wasim A. Qadri, D.S Mahra and Ms Aparna Bhat, Advocates, for NCT of Delhi and All UTs;
Atul Jha and D.K Sinha, Advocates, for State of Chhattisgarh;
J. Anand, Additional Advocate General, K.T.S Tulsi, Senior Advocate (Ajay Paul, Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, Ms Sujoya Bardhan, Anand Grover, Ms Lalit Mohini Bhat, Naveen R. Nath, Nikhil Goel, Sayid Marsook Bafaki, Dr. Kailash Chand and C.D Singh, Advocates) for State of Punjab;
Riku Sarma (for M/s Corporate Law Group), Tara Chandra Sharma, Ms Neelam Sharma, K.R Sasiprabhu, J.S Attri, Bimal Roy Jad, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Radha Shyam Jena, Gopal Prasad, R.K Adsure, Ranjan Mukherjee, Sanjay R. Hegde, Amit Kr. Chawla, Arul Varma, Vikrant Yadav, P. Parameswaran, A.D.N Rao, Sameer Parekh (for M/s P.H Parekh & Co.), S.N Bhat, Sanjay Jain, Rashmikumar Manilal Vithlani, R. Satish and P.V Dinesh, Advocates, for State of Assam.

Judges

Justice P. Sathasivam
Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat
Justice Aftab Alam

Acts

The Constitution of India

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The order arises out of multiple criminal proceedings connected with the 2002 communal violence in the State of Gujarat, including the Godhra train incident and related riots (e.g., Gulbarg Society, Naroda Patiya, Ode massacre, and other matters). Allegations were made that the original police investigations were either inadequate or biased. During the hearing, the State of Gujarat indicated it had no objection to further investigation so as to maintain public confidence. After considering counsel from all sides, the Supreme Court determined that, given the “sensitive nature” of these cases and concerns about communal disharmony, an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT) was necessary.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether, in light of alleged investigative shortcomings and communal sensitivities, the Court should direct the appointment of a Special Investigation Team to conduct further inquiry/investigation into the specified riot-related cases.
Whether ongoing trials should be stayed pending such further investigation to avoid the need for a de novo trial if new evidence emerges.

Arguments of the Parties

State of Gujarat

The State, through Senior Counsel Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, asserted a fair approach and disavowed any intention to shield guilty persons.
Explicitly stated it had no objection to further investigation by an SIT to reinforce transparency.

Victims / Petitioners

Some counsel for the alleged victims disputed the State’s professed fairness but concurred on the need for an SIT.
Senior Counsel Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi contended that certain accused were wrongly implicated and proposed that existing trials continue concurrently with the fresh investigation.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court emphasized secularism and communal harmony as constitutional values and condemned violence perpetrated “in the name of religion.” Observing that public confidence required a transparent process, the Court found consensus among parties on establishing an independent investigative mechanism. It rejected Mr. Tulsi’s request to allow trials to proceed simultaneously, reasoning that new evidence arising from the SIT could necessitate a near de novo trial, which would be undesirable and inefficient. Accordingly, the Court concluded that a comprehensive, fresh investigation by an SIT—followed by further judicial directions—was the proper course to ensure that the guilty are punished while safeguarding procedural fairness.

Holding and Implications

ORDER: The Supreme Court directs the State of Gujarat to issue, within ten days, a notification establishing a Special Investigation Team composed of:

Shri P.K. Raghavan (Retd. Director, CBI) – Chairperson
Shri C.B. Satpathy (Retd. DG, Uttar Pradesh Police College)
Ms. Geeta Johri – Convenor
Shri Shivanand Jha
Shri Ashish Bhatia

The SIT shall:

Formulate investigative modalities at its first meeting.
Conduct fresh or further investigation into the enumerated cases (Godhra, Gulbarg Society, Naroda Patiya, Ode, Naroda Gaon, “British Nationals Case,” “Deepda Darwaza,” and others).
Accept statements from any person wishing to provide information.
Receive full logistical support from the State Government.
Submit its report to the Court in a sealed cover within three months.

Ongoing trials in the specified matters are effectively paused until further orders. The cases are listed for additional directions in the last week of August 2008, and pleadings are to be completed within three months.

Implications: The order centralizes and standardizes investigations under an independent body, aiming to restore public confidence in the criminal-justice process for the 2002 Gujarat riot cases. While it does not create new legal doctrine, it underscores the Supreme Court’s willingness to intervene with supervisory mechanisms when communal violence cases raise concerns about fair investigation and prosecution.

Show full summary ...

National Human Rights Commission v. State Of Gujarat And Others

Order

1. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we feel that considering the sensitive nature of the cases involved, appointment of a Special Investigation Team (in short “SIT”) is warranted.

2. Communal harmony is the hallmark of a democracy. No religion teaches hatred. If in the name of religion, people are killed, that is essentially a slur and blot on the society governed by rule of law. The Constitution of India, in its Preamble refers to secularism. Religious fanatics really do not belong to any religion. They are no better than terrorists who kill innocent people for no rhyme or reason in a society which as noted above is governed by rule of law.

3. There are cases where there is an element of communal disharmony, which is not to be countenanced. The State of Gujarat has stated that it has no objection if further investigation is done so that peoples' faith in the transparency of action taken by the State is fortified.

4. Mr Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State stated that the State's approach is fair and it is not interested in shielding any culprit or a guilty person, but on the other hand, would like all those who are guilty, to be punished. This statement of Mr Rohatgi is not accepted by some of the learned counsel appearing for the alleged victims. We need not go into that aspect, in view of the fact that there is an agreement that there is a need for a Special Investigation Team.

5. We, therefore, direct that an appropriate notification shall be issued by the State Government regarding the creation of SIT, the constitution of which shall be as follows:

1. Shri P.K Raghavan, Retd. Director of CBI

2. Shri C.B Satpathy, Retd. DG, Director, Uttar Pradesh Police College, Moradabad

3. Ms Geeta Johri

4. Shri Shivanand Jha

5. Shri Ashish Bhatia

The notification by the State be issued as early as practicable, preferably within ten days. Officers at Sl. Nos. 3 to 5 are IG rank officers. Shri Raghavan will be the Chairman of the Committee and Ms Geeta Johri shall be the Convenor.

6. The Committee shall in its first meeting work out the modalities to be adopted for the purpose of enquiry/investigation. If any person wants to make statement before SIT for giving his or her version of the alleged incidents, SIT shall record it. Those who want to give their version shall in writing intimate the Convenor of the Committee so that SIT can call him or her for the purpose of recording his/her statement. It is needless to say that SIT shall not confine the investigation by recording statement of those who come forward to give his or her version and shall be free to make such inquiries/investigation as felt necessary by it.

7. The State Government shall provide necessary infrastructure and provide resources for effective working of SIT. The report of SIT shall be furnished to this Court in a sealed cover after completion of the inquiry/investigation for which three months time is granted. After the report is submitted, the further action required to be taken shall be dealt with by this Court.

8. SIT shall conduct inquiries/investigations including further investigation in the following cases:

I. Godhra

FIR No. 09 of 2002 dated 27-2-2002:

(i) CRs Nos. 1-6 of 2002 titled Mohd. Rafudan Ansari.

(ii) CR No. 09 of 2002 titled State v. Junia Farooq Hassan pending in the Juvenile Court.

II. Sardarura, Mehsana

CR No. 275 of 2002 arising out of FIR No. 46 of 2002 dated 28-2-2002 of Police Station Bijapur, Mehsana.

III. Gulbarg Society, Meghaninagar, Ahmedabad

CR No. 67 of 2002 at Meghaninagar Police Station.

(i) Sessions Case No. 152 of 2002 titled State v. Kailash Lalchand Dhobi.

(ii) Criminal Case No. 1720 of 2002 titled State v. Shankarji Hakaji Mali pending in the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad.

(iii) Criminal Case No. 296 of 2003 titled State v. Sandeep pending in the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad.

(iv) Criminal Case No. 524 of 2002 titled State v. Vishal Badrilal Nayee pending in the Juvenile Court, Ahmedabad.

IV. Naroda Patiya

Arising out of FIR No. 100 of 2002 dated 28-2-2002 of PS Naroda, Ahmedabad.

(i) CR No. 982 of 2002 titled State v. Naresh Chahra pending in the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad.

(ii) CR No. 1662 of 2002 titled State v. Padmendra Singh.

V. Ode Anand District

CRs Nos. 23 and 27 of 2002 (Ode massacre). Leave was granted to the petitioners, CJP, to amend petition to include these session trials. Trials were stayed.

VI. Naroda Gaon

Inadvertently left out. CJP filed TP (Crl.) No. 223 of 2004 and trial was stayed on 23-8-2004.

VII. WP No. 284 of 2003, TP (Crl.) No. 43 of 2004, Imran Dawood v. Union of India

9. So far as SLP (Crl.) No. 4409 of 2003 and Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 216 of 2003 are concerned, though it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the State of Gujarat that the trial is at concluding stage, in view of the orders passed in the other cases, we feel it would be appropriate if the inquiry/investigation including further investigation is done, in this case also. The relevant case is FIR No. 60 of 2002 commonly known as “Deepda Darwaza”. So far as Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 284 of 2003 and TP (Crl.) No. 43 of 2004 are concerned, the case is commonly known as “British Nationals Case” and relates to Himmat Nagar, Prantij PS, District Sabarkantta and relates to FIR 1/26/2002.

10. We make it clear that SIT shall be free to work out the modalities and the norms required to be followed for the purpose of inquiry/investigation including further investigation. Needless to say the sole object of the criminal justice system is to ensure that a person who is guilty of an offence is punished.

11. Mr K.T.S Tulsi, learned Senior Counsel had submitted that in some cases the alleged victims themselves say that wrong persons have been included by the police officials as accused and the real culprits are sheltered. He, therefore, suggested that trial should go on, notwithstanding the inquiry/investigation including further investigation as directed by us. We find that the course would not be appropriate because if the trial continues and fresh evidence/materials surface, it would require almost a de novo trial which would be not desirable.

12. These matters shall be listed for further directions in the last week of August, 2008. The pleadings in all these matters be completed within a period of three months.

National Human Rights Commission v. State Of Gujarat And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

State of Gujarat

Victims / Petitioners

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

National Human Rights Commission v. State Of Gujarat And Others

Comments