Hindu Vivek Kendra
A RESOURCE CENTER FOR THE PROMOTION OF HINDUTVA
   
 
 
«« Back
 

No new material produced by Zakia for further probe in Gulberg society case: SIT

Author: Express News Service
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: August 6, 2015
URL:   http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/no-new-material-produced-by-zakia-for-further-probe-in-gulberg-society-case-sit/

In 2006, Jafri filed a complaint in the Supreme Court against Modi and 62 others.

The Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) on Wednesday defended its closure report that gave clean chit to the then Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi, who is Prime Minister now, and others in the 2002-post Godhra riots. It said no new material produced by the complainant, seeking further investigation, warranted a consideration.

Appearing for the SIT, senior counsel C S Vaidyanathan said this in response to a query raised by Justice Sonika Gokani-led single judge bench of the Gujarat High Court. She had asked the SIT to ascertain whether the complaint of Zakia Jafri, whose husband ex-Congress MP Ahsan Jafri was among the 69 people killed in the Gulberg Society massacre, is part of the case or an independent complainant. Vaidyanathan argued that this aspect of the case is not going to make any difference.

The Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) on Wednesday defended its closure report that gave clean chit to the then Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi, who is Prime Minister now, and others in the 2002-post Godhra riots. It said no new material produced by the complainant, seeking further investigation, warranted a consideration.

Appearing for the SIT, senior counsel C S Vaidyanathan said this in response to a query raised by Justice Sonika Gokani-led single judge bench of the Gujarat High Court. She had asked the SIT to ascertain whether the complaint of Zakia Jafri, whose husband ex-Congress MP Ahsan Jafri was among the 69 people killed in the Gulberg Society massacre, is part of the case or an independent complainant. Vaidyanathan argued that this aspect of the case is not going to make any difference.
 
«« Back
 
 
 
  Search Articles
 
  Special Annoucements