Gujarat riots: Naroda Patiya victims want PC Pande, 3 others as accused

Special court judge Jyotsana Yagnik has issued notice to special investigation team (SIT) on an application seeking further investigation and inclusion of four cops, including former DGP PC Pande as accused in the Naroda Patiya case.

The plea was filed by the victims of Naroda Patiya through their advocates Yousuf Sheikh and Raju Sheikh. The judge also asked the SIT to file its reply by December 7. In all, 95 persons had died in the incident during the 2002 riots.

The lawyers submitted in the application that there was complicity of high functionaries of the state machinery in serious crimes during the riots. Criminal conspiracy and serious dereliction of duty need to be probed and all the real accused be brought to book of law to meet the end of justice.

They further said that the court shall issue order of further investigation based on phone call records collected by IPS Rahul Sharma who was in charge of city control room during the riot
period.

The SIT should analyse the phone call records of high rank officials and investigate their role on aspect of dereliction of duty. They sought joining of the then Naroda PI K KMysorewala, DCP Zone IV PB Gondia, JCP (sector 2) MK Tandon (now retired) and police commissioner PC Pande (who retired as DGP) as accused in the case.

Meanwhile, GL Singhal, district superintendent of police of Kheda, gave testimony before the court as he investigated the case when he was posted as ACP with the the Detection of Crime Branch (DCB) in 2002. Singhal, who is under scanner in the Ishrat Jahan encounter case, had arrested two accused in the case and filed a charge-sheet against many accused.

My stand against Modi vindicated, says Bhatt

Last updated on: October 25, 2011 00:20 IST

Suspended Indian Police Services officer Sanjiv Bhatt on Monday said his stand on the credibility of probe done by the special investigation team into the role of Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in 2002 riots has been vindicated by the reported findings of amicus curiae Raju Ramchandran.

Bhatt had filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court in April this year raising serious apprehensions about the probe being carried out by SIT with regard to the 2002 riots.

He had said there were inadequacies in the manner and approach of the SIT which he had personally experienced during the interaction with the agency.

Bhatt has accused the SIT of hostility and coercing of witnesses while probing the Gulburg Society case of 2002 riots.

`Enough proof to act against Guj top cops'

`Enough proof to act against Gujarat top cops'

HT 25OCT2011

NEW DELHI:

2002 RIOTS SC amicus curiae recommends filing criminal cases against officers

For the first time since the 2002 anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat, a confidential report by a Supreme Court appointed lawyer has recommended registration of criminal cases against senior police officers posted in the state then.

In his report, senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, appointed amicus curiae (friend of the court) by the SC, has proposed booking these policemen for allegedly causing death due negligence and for disobeying law in the discharge of their official duties, HT has learnt.

The report could spell trouble for at least three former Gujarat police chiefs, all of whom held key positions during the riots and were named in the complaint of Zakia Jafri, the widow of former Congress MP Ahesan Jafri who was burnt alive on February 28, 2002, along with 68 others Apart from the top three, others in trouble include senior IPS officers MK Tandon and PB Gondia, against whom adverse inferences had been drawn in the SIT. The panel, however, had not sought criminal proceedings against them, but recommended only disciplinary action.

Ramachandran's report does not agree with the SIT. His report is believed to have concluded that a criminal case under specific offenses of the IPC can be made out against them.

Tandon, now retired, was a JCP in 2002, Gondia was Ahmedabad DCP. Both were responsible for the maintenance of law and order in the Gulberg Society area. They could be booked under section 304A IPC (causing death due to negligence) and also under section 166 (disobeying law as public servants to cause hurt to others).

For the three former DGPs -K Chakravarti, AK Bhargava and PC Pande -the immediate fallout will be that the trial court, which had deferred the issue since it was before the SC, will now have to decide on Zakia's complaint which names them. Chakravarti was the state DGP during the riots, Pande was the Ahmedabad commissioner and Bhargava was in charge of the state police administration.

Jafri had repeatedly called Pande before he was killed.

Nagendar Sharma
nagendar.sharma@hindustantimes.com

'The Case Has Gone from No FIR to Being Heard in a Criminal Court'

Opinion » Interview

September 16, 2011

The Supreme Court's September 12 order in the Zakia Ehsan Jafri case has set off wildly contradictory reactions, indicating an absence of legal literacy in political and media circles. The Bharatiya Janata Party celebrated the order as a victory for Narendra Modi, even as Ms Jafri, who wants Mr. Modi and 61 others to be prosecuted for the 2002 Gujarat riots, claimed to have been left depressed by it. There has been confusion over several issues: the status of the “accused”; the respective legal standing of the R.K. Raghavan-led Special Investigation Team and the amicus curiae, Raju Ramachandran, and so forth. In April 2009, the Supreme Court handed charge of Ms. Jafri's complaint to the SIT, which has since submitted three reports to the court, the last after factoring in points made in a separate note by the amicus curiae. On May 5, 2011, the Supreme Court directed the amicus to independently assess the SIT reports and give his comments. On September 12, the Supreme Court sent the case to the trial court, leading to doubts over what has been achieved. In this interview with Vidya Subrahmaniam, Mr. Ramachandran clears the air on the misunderstandings around the order, and explains its legal import.

The order of the Supreme Court in the Zakia Ehsan Jafri case has been interpreted in terms of victory and defeat, and there has been a lot of political drum-beating around it. On the other hand, Ms Jafri has expressed her deep disappointment with the order. How does the lay person cut through the hype and understand the legal import of the order?

As an amicus curiae, I will not react to how one side or the other describes the Order. I am, however, anxious that the court's final Order of 12th September is correctly understood and appreciated. It is necessary to keep the background in mind. The petitioner had filed a writ petition in the Gujarat High Court for a direction to register an FIR. She failed to persuade the High Court but the Supreme Court took serious note of her grievance. The court appointed an amicus curiae and also asked the SIT to “look into” the matter. The SIT, which started with a preliminary non-statutory enquiry, later conducted statutory investigations under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Though the SIT was a high-level investigating body, the court introduced an additional safeguard, which is not done as a matter of course, namely, that the amicus curiae would give his comments and independent assessment. This was done in respect of all the reports submitted by the SIT. In respect of the last report, the court even permitted the amicus curiae to interact with witnesses for the purpose of making his assessment. It is after all these exercises were conducted by the SIT and the amicus curiae that the court has set the regular law in motion, by directing that all the relevant material be placed before the appropriate court. Thus, starting from a situation where an FIR was not being registered, the case will now be in the hands of a criminal court.

For more visit:
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/interview/article2456315.ece#.TnLESN4ZTMI.email

'It is Premature to Talk of Either Clean Chits or Indictments'

Tehelka 13SEP2011

EXCLUSIVE

Cutting through the hype and getting down to brass tacks, amicus curiae Raju Ramachandranexplains to Ashish Khetan the Supreme Court order in the 2002 Gujarat massacre case

The Supreme Court order directing the Special Investigation Team to file its final report into the allegations of Narendra Modi being the architect of the 2002 Gujarat massacre before an Ahmedabad trial court has been wrongly interpreted as relief for the Gujarat chief minister by his party and sympathisers. The amicus curiae in the case, Raju Ramachandran, who had been assisting the apex court for almost a year tells TEHELKA that the order is neither an exoneration nor a clean-chit for Modi and several other state top functionaries who have been listed as accused in the slain Congress leader Ehsan Jafri’s widow Zakia Jafri’s complaint.

Explaining the true legal and judicial essence of the order, Ramachandran said that his comprehensive and independent evaluation of the SIT report would have a significant bearing in the final outcome of the probe against Modi. He also dismissed the apprehensions that entrusting the judicial proceedings into the allegations of larger conspiracy back to an Ahmedabad court would lead to derailment of the process of justice. He said the complainant would have all the judicial remedies available to her, in case she is dissatisfied with the trial court proceedings. Contrary to the picture painted by the BJP, Modi’s tryst with the law has only begun and not ended.

In your considered view, is the Supreme Court order instructing the SIT to place its final report or chargesheet before a trial court in Ahmedabad, a legal and moral victory for Narendra Modi and others—as being claimed by BJP and the government of Gujarat?
As an amicus, I would not like to comment on the reaction of this side or the other. I am, however, keen to see that the order is correctly understood. The Supreme Court’s order is an impeccable one. It upholds the rule of law. It protects the rights of both the complainant and the potential accused. The law will now take its course. My report contains an independent assessment of the material on record which was given after an interaction with relevant witnesses. The SIT Report and my report would be before the trial court. I have no doubt that the trial court will act in accordance with law and that the ends of justice will be met. It is premature to talk of either clean chits or indictments. That stage can come before the trial court when the law is set in motion.

For more visit:
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main50.asp?filename=Ws130911Exclusive.asp

2002 Riots: Just Wait for the Trial

Asianage

14SEP2011

The Supreme Court is not a trial court and Monday's decision is the logical next step after the completion of investigation

Much in life is interpretation. This alas is true of the action of the Supreme Court on Monday ending its involvement with the high-profile case involving Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi, for which the investigation was being conducted under the court's direction. Since the investigation by the Special Investigation Team has been concluded, the court quite appropriately directed that the responsibility of trial must devolve on the magistrate's court in Ahmedabad.

The Supreme Court is not a trial court and Monday's decision is the logical next step after the completion of investigation. And yet the BJP behaves as if it had won the Derby. The most sober assessment has come from the party's legal eagle, Arun Jaitley, who said under media questioning that the Supreme Court's action did not amount to giving Mr Modi a “clean chit“. Nevertheless, his party publicly projects the episode as a victory. The Gujarat leader himself has as a victory. The Gujarat leader himself has been quoted as saying “God is great,“ as though he has walked through fire. In con Zakia trast, the deceased Congress MP's widow Jafri, who filed the case against the chief minister and 62 others for instigating post-Godhra communal violence in the state, in the course of which her husband and 69 others were murdered in cold blood, is deeply disappointed. She had perhaps thought she would get “justice“ from the country's highest court in the sense that Mr Modi would be proclaimed guilty.

The hard fact is that the trial is yet to open.

The Supreme Court had taken charge of the investigation because the Gujarat police was deemed to have become unreliable. Without a trial, the court could have neither held the chief minister guilty nor acquitted him. So then what explains the BJP's euphoria? It is possible that high-pitched exclamations of presumed victory are meant to hustle the Ahmedabad magistrate on whom a great burden has been cast. After all, when the state was being rocked by communal violence, its judicial structure too came under a cloud, and the Best Bakery case trial had to be shifted to Mumbai.

When the trial in the Zakia case begins, the presiding magistrate will be required to take note of the SIT report and the report of the Supreme Court's amicus curiae. The Supreme Court appointed an amicus curiae when aspersions were cast on certain aspects of the SIT's functioning, who then concluded that the SIT's conclusions were at variance with some of its own findings during investigations. The real state of play will become known when the magistrate frames the charges based on the two reports. Until then, politics should take a back seat.

Urgent Press Release from Citizens for Justice and Peace

September 12, 2011

Press Release

Victim survivors and Citizens for Justice and Peace welcome the judgement passed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the Zakia Ahsan Jafri & Citizens for Justice and Peace SLP 1088/2008 today. The order is annexed to this press release.

While the prayers in our petition was for the registration of an FIR against chief minister Narendra Modi and 61 others and transfer of the investigations to CBI, the Order of the Court goes far beyond this and in fact directs the SIT to, under Section 173(2) chargesheet all accused on the basis of our complaint and submit all reports of the SC-driven investigation including the SIT reports, the Amicus Raju Ramachandran reports to the Magistrate’s Court hearing the Gulberg trial. Moreover as paras 8 and 9 of the Order excerpted below show, we as complainants have been given full locus to be heard and make our case whether the SIT decides to drop some of the accused or if the Magistrate decides to file a closure report. The victim survivors and CJP hope that the SIT will now undertake its job professionally.

The CJP would also like to take this opportunity to express gratitude to all its advocates and lawyers who have appeared pro bono in this and other 2002 related matters.

for more visit:
http://cjponline.org/zakia/110912%20Press%20Note%20Zakia%20CJP.pdf

There is a Sinister Side to ‘ Vibrant’ Gujarat by Aditya Menon

Mailtoday 08SEP2011

by Aditya Menon

LAST month, the Gujarat government suspended whistle- blower Gujarat Police DIG Sanjeev Bhatt for " unauthorised absence from duty". In a state where the government has a habit of protecting its cops for acts much worse than ' not coming to work', this is an inordinately harsh punishment. The accusations made by Mr Bhatt that the state machinery acted in a biased manner during the post- Godhra riots attack are not just about the 2002 pogrom. They target the very basis of Modi's regime — his consistent use of the security apparatus to consolidate and further his power.

Ministers

Like other omnipotent and charismatic chief ministers — J Jayalalithaa, Mamata Banerjee and Nitish Kumar to mention a few — Modi has kept the home ministry with himself. For most part of his rule, which began in 2001, the minister of state for home has been a close aide — Gordhanbhai Zadaphiya till 2003 and Amit Shah from 2003 till his forced resignation in 2010 on account of his arrest in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh murder case. In fact, the change from Zadaphiya to Shah can be seen as symptomatic of the change in the discourse of the Modi regime. While Zadaphiya was from a Vishwa Hindu Parishad background, Shah was known in Bharatiya Janata Party ( BJP) circles as a younger version of Modi — representing a change from Hindutva- centric to personality centric rule in Gujarat.

In Gujarat, the home ministry is considered as being ' cursed' even though no specific cause is attributed for it. The careers of most home ministers or ministers of state for home since as early as the 1970s went downhill almost immediately after their stint in the ministry. This has been most dramatic during the chief ministership of Narendra Modi. Zadaphiya — who was the minister of state for home during the 2002 riots and was widely criticised for his incompetence during that period — later had a dramatic falling out with Modi. He left the BJP and formed his own outfit the Mahagujarat Janata Party and has become virtually irrelevant in Gujarat politics.

For more visit:
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/there-is-a-sinister-side-to-vibrant-gujarat/1/150460.html

Sardarpura Massacre Trial Ends, Verdict Awaited

Gujarat EDN
IE 07SEP2011

Parimal Dabhi

Ahmedabad: The trial proceedings in the 2002 Sardarpura massacre case have concluded and the judgment is awaited though no date has been set.

Thirty-one persons, including women and children, were burnt alive in a locked house of Sardarpura village of Vijapur taluka in Mehsana district of north Gujarat during the post-Godhra riots.

Both prosecution and defence recently completed their arguments in the special trial court for the case presided over by Mehsana district judge S C Srivastava. During the proceedings, the court had also visited the scene of crime, the house in Shaikh Vaas of the village where the massacre took place. Shaikh Vaas was a locality where around 20 kutcha houses belonging to the minority community members were located.

Advocate Aslam Baig, who is appearing on behalf of the witnesses and victims, said the court has completed trial proceedings and its judgment is now awaited on a date to be given by it.

Sardarpura massacre case was one of the nine 2002 riots cases which were ordered to be further investigated by the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team.

On March 1, 2002, a mob of around 1,500 people attacked Shaikh Vaas, where around 100-odd people had stayed back while the rest had fled. The victims had taken shelter at the sole pucca house of one Mehmood Shaikh in the locality. The mob locked the house from outside and set it ablaze.

Twenty-eight people died on the spot, while three succumbed to the injuries subsequently.

Baig said most of the eye-witnesses could survive because they were hiding in houses adjacent to the homes of the local majority community members, which were spared by the rioters.

A total of 73 persons are facing trial in the case. Eight of them are in jail while the rest are out on bail. The prosecution has examined 112 persons as witnesses in the case.

SC Stays Probe in Fabricating Evidence in Riots Case

Gujarat EDN
AM 03SEP2011

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday stayed Gujarat High Court's order giving green signal for an investigation against Rais Khan, former aide of social activist Teesta Setalvad, for allegedly fabricating evidence in a 2002 post-Godhra riot case.

A bench of justices Aftab Alam and R M Lodha also issued notices to Gujarat government and Khan on an appeal filed by Teesta and NGO Citizen for Justice and Peace which has been working in the state in the aftermath of 2002 riots.
Challenging the high court's order, Advocate Sanajay Parekh, appearing for the petitioners, contended "it is apparent on the face of the entire proceedings that the attempt has been made to discredit and dissuade them from assisting the victims of the communal riots from getting justice". PTI

Nityanandam, Mukim Testify Before Godhra Panel

Gujarat EDN

30AUG2011

TIMES NEWS NETWORK

Ahmedabad: Two senior officials - former municipal commissioner Anil Mukim and former home secretary K Nityanandam testified before the Nanavati-Mehta commission on Monday, but they did not mention the presence of IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt during the late night meeting called at chief minister Narendra Modi's residence on February 27, 2002.
Both of them denied that Modi had given any specific instructions to the police towards handling the riots. They listed the officials present during the meeting - then acting chief secretary S K Verma, additional chief secretary (home) Ashok Narayan, then principal secretary to the chief minister P K Mishra, then DGP K Chakravarthi, and former city police commissioner P C Pande.
Mukim told the commission that he was briefly present at the meeting at the beginning but had left afterwards. "I was present just for 5 to 7 minutes in the meeting. At that time, the officers had started briefing the CM about the law and order situation, generally on the prevailing situation," Mukim told the commission.
On being asked whether he recognized Sanjiv Bhatt or had discussions on law and order with him, Mukim told the commission that he could recognize Bhatt by face, but never held discussions with him over law and order. When Nityanandam was asked about it, he said, "The meeting was convened for holding discussions on the law and order situation and no other information came in. The meeting lasted for 20 to 30 minutes. Some officials of the 'CMO' kept coming and going from the meeting and none others were present."

Sanjiv Bhatt Gives CBI 600 Pages of Documents

THE HINDU
26AUG2011

Manas Dasgupta

The controversial Gujarat cadre IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt has reportedly handed over some 600 pages of documents to the Central Bureau of Investigation, many of which could prove incriminating for political leaders, the police and bureaucratic officials alike. Mr. Bhatt, who caused a flutter by filing an affidavit against Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in the Supreme Court alleging his role in the 2002 communal riots, is being questioned in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case.

It is learnt that certain of the documents establish how a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh ideologue from South India functioned as an integral part of the Modi government, — how he was being consulted and shared classified information with, as well as some other top BJP leaders, for every legal move before the apex court and other courts after the 2002 communal riots in the State. They also allegedly exposed a nexus between a State Advocate General and the RSS, and how sensitive pieces of information collected by the Supreme-Court-appointed Special Investigation Team would systematically be passed on to the RSS ideologue.

The government is already grappling with Mr. Bhatt's first salvo regarding Mr. Modi's role in the 2002 Gujarat riots, that he Mrreportedly "directed" the senior police officers to "allow the Hindus to vent their ire on the Muslims" in the aftermath of the Godhra train carnage. While Mr. Bhatt claimed that he was "personally present" at the February 27, 2002 meeting in which Mr. Modi was claimed to have issued the "directive," the State government is making all efforts at every forum, including the G.T.-Nanavati-Akshay-Mehta judicial inquiry commission to demolish the IPS officer's claim.

Gulberg Massacre - Gujarat Cop's Affidavit Sheds Fresh Light on Case

HT 09AUG2011
AHMEDABAD:

HT Correspondent mumbailetters@hindustantimes.com

In an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, Gujarat police officer Sanjiv Bhatt has indicated that N Ram, editorin-chief of the daily The Hindu, had offered to brief an unidentified person on matters related to the 2002 Gulberg Society massacre, on a request from Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh ideologue S Gurumurthy.

A supplementary affidavitfiled on July 26 by Bhatt, a 1988 batch IPS officer, is based on emails exchanged between Tushar Mehta, Gujarat's additional advocate general, Gurumurthy, former Gujarat home minister AmitShah and officials in the CM's office.

In an email, attached as an annexure in Bhatt's supplementary affidavit, Gurumurthy writes to Ram on February 17, 2010: "Dear Ram, This refers to our telephonic talk after Cho (Cho Ramaswamy, editor of Tamil magazine Thuglak) spoke to you and me. Here is the note I would like you to go through so that you understand before you talk to the person."

In the two-page note attached to the mail, Gurumurthy praised Raghavan's confidential reports that were submitted to the SC and trashed the widow of Congress MP Ehsan Jaffri, who was killed, for trying to get a case registeredagainstNarendraModi.

Ram told HT he did not recall any exchange with Gurumurthy.
After explaining the email and the attached note, HT asked Ram whether he knew who was the unnamed person being referred to in the mail. Ram said: "I don't remember anything you are saying. I never talked to Cho or anybody regarding the Gujarat riots."

Asked whether he recalled any conversation with Raghavan about his investigations, Ram said: "No, never. He is a close family friend and writes for our publications, but we never discussed anything about the Gujarat riots."

Gurumurthy initially agreed to respond to the allegations. Later he changed his mind and said: "I don'twanttorespondtoanything.
You are nobody to question me."

Committee Set up to Defend Teesta

Gujarat EDN DNA 30JUL2011 DNA Correspondent Ahmedabad

Social activists working for justice to the victims of Gujarat riots have set up a Committee for Defence of Teesta Setalvad. A note circulated by members of the committee states that the committee will be headed by retired Supreme Court judge PB Sawant.
Former chief minister of Gujarat Suresh Mehta and Prof Asghar Ali Engineer will be its vice-chairpersons. Former additional solicitor general of India BA Desai will be the convener while Irfan Engineer of All India Secular Forum would be the joint convener of the committee. Apart from the office-bearers, around 700 eminent persons from all over India are members of the committee.

The note further says that the committee will take appropriate action to ensure that neither Setalvad nor anybody else is victimised for working for the cause of justice. The committee will defend the human rights of the vulnerable sections and will not only monitor cases slapped on Setalvad but also stand in solidarity with all those who are fighting for the cause of justice in Gujarat, the note says.

Report on Modi’s role in ’02 riots submitted

Gujarat EDN TOI 26JUL2011 Dhananjay Mahapatra | TNN

New Delhi: The Supreme Court-monitored probe into Gujarat riot cases reached a critical stage on Monday with amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran submitting his views on the Special Investigation Team's (SIT) finding that there was no prosecutable evidence against chief minister Narendra Modi.

Modi's fate -- whether he faces a criminal case or not --will depend on the report of senior advocate Ramachandran, who was asked by a special bench of justices D K Jain, P Sathasivam and Aftab Alam to weigh the evidence on record and give an expert opinion on it.

Ramachandran's report will be considered by the bench on August 28, which will be keenly watched not only by the BJP and the Modi government but also by the complainant Jakia Jafri, and social activist Teesta Setalvad, who has filed numerous petitions to seek justice for the victims.

"The court had asked for an independent assessment of the material on record and evidence collected by the SIT. I have also interacted with several persons in Gujarat before submitting the report," Ramachandran told TOI but refused to elaborate on his findings.

Importantly, Ramachandran was also asked to give his views on the affidavit of IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt, who had accused Modi of refusing to rein in violent mobs during a high-level meeting on February 27, 2002, immediately after the Godhra train burning case.

In its report to the court, the R K Raghavan-headed SIT had disbelieved Bhatt's claim and said the officer was not present at Modi's residence when the meeting took place.

Ramachandran visited Gujarat and interacted with several witnesses and people connected with the issue before giving his report to the court. He also dealt with an affidavit filed by a journalist supporting Bhatt's claim that the IPS officer was present during the meeting at Modi's residence.

Dealing with SIT's investigation report on Jakia Jafri's complaint, which had alleged involvement of Modi and 62 other politicians, bureaucrats and cops in the post-Godhra riots, the amicus curiae on March 15 had pointed out certain discrepancies in the conclusion given the tenor of the evidence recorded by the Raghavanheaded team.

The bench on March 15 had asked SIT to look into the amicus curiae's doubts and mandated the team to conduct further probe if needed. Pursuant to the direction, the SIT had interviewed Bhatt. However, ex-DGP K Chakravarthy had countered by alleging that Bhatt was not part of the meeting.

‘Destroyed’ Gujarat Riots Records Suddenly Resurface

Gujarat EDN TOI 23APR2011 Manoj Mitta | TNN

New Delhi: Police records of the Gujarat riots, which were claimed to have been destroyed in the routine course, have suddenly surfaced after nine years. In a curious but potentially farreaching development, P C Pande, who was commissioner of Ahmedabad during the 2002 carnage, is learnt to have submitted over 3,000 pages of scanned copies of those records before the Supreme Court-appointed special investigation team (SIT).

This change followed the Supreme Court’s order on March 15 directing the SIT, headed by former CBI director R K Raghavan, to conduct a further probe on the alleged complicity of the Narendra Modi administration in the riots because of a mismatch between its findings and inferences.

One such mismatch was that the SIT did not recommend that any of the high-ups be booked for destruction of evidence even after it had acknowledged the charge made by the complainants, Zakia Jafri and Teesta Setalvad, that vital records pertaining to the riots had been destroyed to shield the culprits.

Pande’s belated submission of scanned copies came to light on April 11 as the SIT official probing the complaint alleging larger conspiracy, A K Malhotra, informed Setalvad about it while recording her statement. Malhotra stopped Setalvad from dwelling on the charge of destruction of evidence saying that, thanks to Pande’s unexpected move, a lot of records were now available, even if they were only scanned copies in a CD.

Though this disclosure could change the complexion of the case, Setalvad, in a letter to Malhotra on April 20, urged the SIT to exercise caution in dealing with the evidence produced by Pande, who, after his stint as commissioner of Ahmedabad in 2002, went on to become DGP of Gujarat and is now, after his retirement from IPS, chairman of the state police housing corporation.

Pande, like other officials, had earlier maintained before the SIT that many of the police records were unavailable as they had ostensibly been destroyed due to the passage of time. The officials could never give a plausible explanation for not preserving the documents that could have a vital bearing on the criminal investigations, trial proceedings and judicial inquiries related to the 2002 violence.

For all its significance, the resurrection of records through Pande’s CD of scanned pages raises questions about whether he had a change of heart or it was a covert attempt to save his skin or it was part of a fresh strategy adopted by the Modi government.

“I have nothing to say,’’ Pande asserted, when TOI asked him about his CD to SIT. Raghavan did not respond to an email sent on Friday morning asking him about the nature of the records revealed by Pande and their impact on the SIT’s probe on the conspiracy behind the post-Godhra riots.