2002 Gujarat riots: SC to hear plea challenging SIT clean chit to PM Narendra Modi on November 19

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear a plea by filed by Zakia Jafri, the widow of former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri, challenging the clean chit given by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to PM Narendra Modi and others in the 2002 Gujarat riots case.

According to reports, the top court will take up the case on November 19.

Supreme Court to hear on 19th November a plea by filed by Zakia Jafri, widow of former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri, challenging clean chit given by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to PM Narendra Modi, other top politicians and bureaucrats in the 2002 Gujarat riots. — ANI (@ANI) 13 November 2018

Upholding the clean chit given to PM Modi and several others in the 2002 Gulberg Society massacre case, the Gujarat High Court had last year rejected the petition moved by Zakia Jafri and directed her to approach higher forums for further investigation into the case.

On February 28, 2002, at least 68 people, including Congress MP Ehsan Jafri, were killed by a mob at the Gulberg Society in Ahmedabad.

Jafri's allegations were investigated by the SIT appointed by the Supreme Court in March 2008. 

The ST interrogated PM Modi, the then Gujarat chief minister, for over nine hours in 2010.

It later cleared PM Modi of all charges in the case.

Clearing PM Modi and 59 others, the SIT in its closure report said there was no “prosecutable evidence” against him.

On February 9, 2012, Jafri along with social activist Teesta Setalvad's NGO 'Citizen for Justice and Peace' had moved a petition, challenging the SIT's clean chit to PM Modi in a lower metropolitan court. 

It demanded that they be accused on charges of criminal conspiracy behind the riots. In December 2013, the lower court upheld the SIT's report.

Jafri and the NGO then moved to the Gujarat High Court. The hearing in the case concluded on July 3, 2017.

Jafri's representatives claimed that the lower court ignored the Supreme Court's guidelines and did not consider the signed statements of witnesses, suggesting conspiracy behind the incidents.