R.B.Sreekumar, I.P.

S, (Retd),
Former DGP. Gujarat.
Plot №-193,
‘Sreelekshmideepam’
Sector-8,
Gandhinagar-382008,
Gujarat.
Phone: 079-23247876
M: 9428016117
Email: [email protected]
Tel:- 079-23247876
0120-4284799
Mob:- 09428016117
№-RBS/GOV/Riots/03/2012
Date: 9th December 2012.

Subject: A representation in the public interests for

initiation of departmental action against those responsible for
culpable negligence in maintenance of public order and
investigation of genocidal crimes.

Respected Madam,

I belong to 1971 batch of India Police Service (I.P.S,), Gujarat State Cadre. I had
retired from service on 28th February 2007.

2. I had submitted nine Affidavits to the Justice Nanavati Commission (herein after
mentioned as ‘the Commission’), probing into the protracted communal riots in Gujarat
State in the year 2002- four Affidavits while I was in service and five, afterwards (total
six hundred and sixty-three pages). The evidence and documents in my Affidavits had
provided indepth information on the culpable role of the Gujarat State bureaucracy and
police, including the Chief Minister Shri. Narendra Modi in (1) The planning and
execution of anti-minority carnage in 2002, (2) Manipulation and subversion of the
Criminal Justice System (CJS) in the State to deny and delay justice delivery to riot
victim survivors, (3) Illegal acts and misconduct by State Home Department Officials
and Government pleader to impede the flow of evidence to the Commission etc.

1
3. In various litigations for justice by riot victim survivors, materials in my Affidavits
have been comprehensively utilized to support and to strengthen their cases. In the
month of August 2002, the Central Election Commission (CEC) had rejected the State
Assembly Election Schedule proposed by the State Government, basing on my
presentation before CEC on 9/08/2002 about the then prevailing law and order situation.
Kindly see the copy of CEC order dated 16/08/2002, enclosed as Annexure -I for
confirmation.

4. During my tenure as ADGP (INT), as In-charge of the State Intelligence Branch

(SIB) from 9/04/2002 to 18/09/2002, I had submitted several intelligence assessment
reports to the State Home Department, DGP and the relevant jurisdictional police
officers about law and order trends; quality and efficiency of service delivered to the riot
victims; merit and potency of police action for preventing and containment of violence
basing on advance, preventive real time intelligence; measures for correcting anti-
Muslim bias of Government officials and remedying maladies in the CJS etc. The copies
of these reports were appended in my first and second Affidavits submitted to the
Commission on 15/07/2002, and 6/10/2004, respectively, in compliance with orders
from DGP, Gujarat. (Four of these reports i.e. (1) dated 24/04/2002, (2) 15/06/2002, (3)
20/08/2002 and (4) 28/08/2002 are enclosed as Annexure-II, A, B, C and D.
Submission of such intelligence appraisal reports were in tune with the directives in
Rule 461 of Gujarat Police Manual, (GPM) Vol III, compilation of circulars captioned
‘Communal Peace’ and the booklet issued by DGP K V Joseph captioned ‘Instructions
to deal with communal riots – strategy and approach’, in 1997.

5. Strangely the State Government and DGP did not initiate any purposeful and
effective action towards actualization of my suggested remedial measures to counter
the subversion of CJS to tamper with justice delivery to riot victims. But, the higher
authorities also did not challenge or questioned the contents of my reports, nor I was
asked to furnish any additional data. However, the Chief Minister Narendra Modi had
verbally questioned the basis of my assessment (See entry dated 7/05/2002 in my
Register, copy of which was attached as Annexure E of my Third Affidavit). Responding
to my presentation, based on facts, in support of contention of my report, dated

2
24/04/2002, the CM had simply disagreed with me. But, he neither did issue any written
directive on my assessment asking for reversing and reworking my appraisal of the
situation and recommendations, nor he asked for deeper probe, nor he did do anything
to implement my suggestions to correct maladies in the CJS. Shree Ashok Narayan,
IAS, (1966 batch), ACS Home Department had admitted to me in the month of August
2004 that Government did not act upon my intelligence reports and that these were put
up to the Chief Minister. (See my 9 th Affidavit to the Commission dated 12 th January
2012- Audio tape of the conversation is available). Home Department Officials and
DGPs from April 2004 to 2007 are liable for this default.

6. The State Government also did not take action on many proposals sent by SIB
against media, publishers and distributors of materials containing ingredients of
communal incitement and aggravation of hatred between communities. The details and
the copies of these proposals were included in my First and Second Affidavits and in my
deposition to the Commission on 31/08/2004 in a cross-examination. Officers In-charge
of Home Department Shree Ashok Narayan, KC Kapoor, IAS (1973), and Shree
Balvantsinh IAS (1975) and Secretary Legal Department Shrimati Bela Trivedi and her
successors are responsible for this dereliction of duty.

7. Since the subversion of the CJS resulted in near – total denial of justice to riot
victims and manipulative techniques were adopted by police and prosecution, at the
ground level, many litigations were filed by aggrieved parties, NGOs, NHRC etc. in the
Hon. Gujarat High Court and Apex Court. Consequently, being aware of the
undesirable conditions in Gujarat, the Apex Court had severely criticized the State
Administration in the judgement of Criminal Appeal №-446-449, 2004 (Zahira Shaikh
V/s. State of Gujarat) thus - “If one cursorily glances through the records of the case,
one gets a feeling that the justice delivery system was being taken for a ride and literally
allowed to be abused, misused and mutilated by subterfuge. The investigation appears
to be perfunctory and anything but impartial without any definite objective of finding out
the truth and bringing to book those who were responsible for the crime. Those who are
responsible for protecting life and properties and ensuring that investigation is fair and
proper seem to have shown no real anxiety. Large number of people had lost their

3
lives. Whether the accused persons were really assailants or not could have been
established by fair and impartial investigation. The modern day “Neros” were looking
elsewhere when Best Bakery and innocent children and women were burning, and were
probably deliberating how the perpetrators of the crime can be saved or protected. Law
and Justice became flies in the hands of these “wanton boys.” When fences start to
swallow the crops, no scope will be left for survival of law and order or truth and justice.
Public order as well as public interest becomes martyrs and monuments.” The
Honourable Supreme Court also concluded that there was “Ample evidence on record,
glaringly demonstrating subversion of justice delivery system with no congeal or
conducive atmosphere still prevailing”, i.e. in April 2004.

8. It is axiomatic that had the State Home Department and DGP implemented my
pinpointed suggestions to contain and control the sabotage of the CJS against the riot
victims, through the relevant Govt. functionaries, the Apex Court would not have been
prompted to make the above strictures against the State Administration.

9. My assessment about criminal negligence by the State Government Officials was

further reiterated by the Apex Court in its following decisions, a) Transfer of
investigation of Bilkis Banu mass rape case to CBI, b) Transfer of trial of 2 cases (Bilkis
Banu and Best Bakery) to Maharashtra, c) Ordering reopening and reinvestigation of
2000 odd closed riot related cases (closed by the State Police for favouring the
accused drawn from the Sangh Parivar). (Even statutory notice was also not issued to
the complainants who filed the FIRs, before closing the cases. This was an
unprecedented move by the Supreme Court, for the first time in the judicial history of
India), d) Appointment of SIT to reinvestigate major genocide cases and to probe Mrs.
Jafri’s complaint and e) Gujarat High Court in February 2012, had assailed the State
Government for its failure to protect historical monuments and religious centres of
Muslim community during riots. Significantly, Special Courts hearing cases investigated
by the SIT, headed by Dr. R. K. Raghavan, reportedly, had passed strictures against
unprofessional investigation of riot cases by Gujarat police. The Court had particularly
censored one Police Inspector Patel, who investigated Dipda Darwaza case of
Mahesana District. In all these judicial directions, the higher judiciary made critical

4
observations against the State Government functionaries.

10. Even reports by NHRC, National Minority Commission etc. had also echoed my
assessment about the subversion of the CJS and failure of Government to take
remedial measures.

11. The most ghastly massacre (96 people killed and 125 injured) during the 2002
anti-minority genocide was enacted in Naroda Patia locality of Ahmedabad city. The
judgement on this man made tragedy pronounced by Judge Dr.Jyotsna Yagnik, the
Special Court Judge on 31 August 2012 has many unprecedently energising aspects for
the CJS in the judicial history of India. Criminology predicates about the imperative
convergence and collaboration of five category of criminals for the devilish execution of
mass crimes. They are (1) Planners, (2) Organisers, (3) Ground level mobilisers, (4)
Perpetrators or foot soldiers (those who inflicted physical violence literally), and (5)
Facilitators or enablers. In this case, the Court had punished besides the executers of
violence, an organiser (former State Minister) and ground level mobiliser (Bhajrang Dal /
Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader). The Court had also confirmed, (1) The premeditated
conspiracy, (2) Sequential and steady preparatory efforts, (3) Actions towards
mobilization of violent mobs, (4) Conspicuous collaborative acts by police and so on.

12. Naroda Patia Judgement had made many severe critical comments on the
jurisdictional police officers for their reprehensible acts like (1) Not containing anti-
Muslim blood bath which continued for ten hours from morning 9. AM onwards, on the
Vishwa Hindu Parishad sponsored Bandh on 28/02/2002, (2) Massacre of 58 persons in
curfew bound area as police allowed mobs to move freely in public places during
curfew, (3) Not registering complaints /FIRs as narrated by the riot victims, (4) Avoiding
the names of prominent Hindu leaders in the FIRs, (5) Not arresting accused figuring in
FIRs, (6) Not recovering property looted by the accused, (7) Failure of hierarchical
senior police officers of Gujarat police to effectively supervise the investigation of cases
of Naroda Patia violence etc.

13. Significantly, the anti-Minority bias of Gujarat police was graphically brought to
the notice of State Government and the DGP in my reports as Head of SIB since

5
9/04/2002. In my report captioned ‘An Analytical Note on Current Communal Scenario
in Ahmedabad city, dated 24/04/2002’ (Annexure-II A enclosed.) after delineating trends
of anti-Muslim bias of police, I had suggested pinpointed remedial measures to counter
manipulative actions by police officers, particularly the Investigating Officers (IOs) to
favour accused in the riot cases. Since the Government did not take any follow up of
action on my report (nor did the Government question contents of my report) I had
submitted another assessment report on 15/06/2002 insisting upon implementation of
suggested curative measures for achieving total normalcy on the communal front in the
State.

14. Still the State Home Department and DGP did not do anything for implementing
my suggestions. This irresponsible, illegal and anti-Minority posture of Government
officials was criticized by CEC in its order dated 16/08/2002 paras 16, 20, 30, 31 (iv), 32
and 59. No departmental action or imposing of even minor punishment was taken
against erring Officials. Perhaps they must have been acting as per the hidden anti-
minority agenda of the Political leadership in the State Government.

15. In my report dated 24/04/2002 , Para III Sub-para 1 to 8 I had indicated about
“Muslim Community developing a severe grudge against CJS which they perceive to be
heavily biased against Muslims, judging from the line of action taken by the
Investigating officers on their complaints and other segments of CJS”. Reasons for the
loss of faith are (a) Police officers are being not fair in recording the complaints and the
complainants are pressurised (1) from giving complaints, (2) for minimisation of the
ingredients of offences, (3) for avoiding the naming of specific persons ; (b) Naming of
the accused in the FIRs has greater evidential value as against the witnesses giving
names; (c) Many acts of violence, which have taken place as different transactions are
clubbed together and registered as a single FIR, adversely affecting the reliability and
evidential value of the complaint and providing loopholes to the accused during the
Prosecution; (d) Merger of many complaints into one FIR would affect the process of
Insurance claims; (e) Avoidance of arrest of Hindu leaders even if their names figure in
the FIR of major offences, (f) Whenever Hindu accused are arrested no effort is made to
take them on remand for recovery of property looted, weapons of offence or for other

6
investigation purposes; (g) The accused from Hindu Community arrested for non
bailable offences are immediately got released , on account of partisan stand taken by
the Public Prosecutors and lack of keenness of the police; (h) reduction in the deterrent
effect of the arrest of Hindu accused due to soft attitude of police, on other lumpen
elements among Hindu communalists; (i) VHP and Bhajrang Dal activists extorting
protection money from merchants; (j) VHP men intimidating merchants and general
public from employing Muslims on any vocation or job; (k) Circulation of communally
inciting pamphlets by VHP; (l) Prevalence of an atmosphere of permissiveness in
Ahmedabad city due to inability of city police to contain and control violence; (m) Senior
police officers complaining about officers at the decisive rung of the hierarchical order
viz Inspectors In-charge of police stations ignoring the specific instructions from official
hierarchy on account of their getting direct verbal instructions from the senior political
leaders of the Ruling Party who ensure their placement and continuance in their
choicest executive posts , at the cost of the spirit and letter of the laws of the land etc.

16. Damage done to the poor quality of investigation and dispensation of justice to riot
victims due to above illegal and unprofessional stance of police was severely criticized
by the court in Naroda Patia judgment. This had confirmed the fact that the Home
department and DGP did not take follow up action on my intelligence assessment
reports. Courts confirming about prevalence of serious maladies indicated by me (in the
investigation of cases by police against the Hindu accused persons) in Naroda Patia
cases judgment may be seen in pages 269, 270, 273, 274, 275, 289, 291, 292, 293,
294, 295, 314, 372, 489, 491, 495, 503, 504, 510, 511, 513, 515, 1497, 1501, 509, 1547
and 1564.

17. In page 487, para c – 6, the Court observed “while people were flocking the streets
(as curfew was not deliberately enforced) leaving their households inside, inspector
Shri. K. K. Mysorewala has reported to the Control Room (Ahmedabad city) that
“everything is ok” (Khariat hain – There is peace and happiness in Patia area) it was like
“when Rome was burning, Nero was playing fiddle”.

18. In page 1497, the Court said “the court has not held the previous investigation to be
such on which implicit reliance can be placed, more particularly for not recording true
7
statements of the victims. At times, attempts have been confirmed to have been made
to see to it that presence and participation of certain VIP accused does not come on
record. Not only that, but attempts have been made to project entire communal riots to
have been created because of occurrence of rash and negligent driving of TATA 407 ,
free fight took place at the site between Hindus and Muslims and murder of Ranjit Singh
etc.”

19. In page 1564, the Court had concluded “it seems that all previous investigators
from Gujarat police were lacking sensitivity, were not entirely fair to the process, were
seemed to be overpowered by someone, were aimed to protect some person, were not
quality conscious, but were harping upon the quantity, at times were doing haphazard
investigations, over distribution of work to many assignee officers has de-shaped the
investigation, they were “soft to loss of property but hard to vibrant human hearts”, they
were lacking necessary care and seriousness which such sensitive cases deserve”.

20. The blatant unprofessionalism and unwarranted prejudice practiced by series of

Investigating Officers (IO) – all from Gujarat police - against riot victims from Muslim
community, had palpably tacit and obvious support from senior supervisory officers in
the ranks of Dy. SP to Commissioner of Police in Ahmedabad city. These linear
supervisory officers had abdicated their statutory responsibility and authority vested on
them under sections 36, 129, 131, 144 and 154 of CRPC and duties assigned to them
under the provisions of the Indian Police Act 1861, the Bombay Police Act, GPM vol – III
Rule No. 22 to 30, 33, 34, 36, 113, 114, 134, 135 and 240 and numerous DGP circulars.
The Commissioners of Police in Ahmedabad city during the relevant period from 27-02-
2002 to June 2008 – Shri P. C. Pandey IPS – 1970, and Shri. K. R. Kaushik – IPS –
1972 and their junior officers in the line of command were responsible for
unprofessional supervision of the IOs of 2002 riot crimes like Naroda Patia carnage and
others. They had committed serious dereliction of duties and misconduct violating All
India Service (AIS) conduct rules, rule-3 particularly, and are liable to be dealt with
through departmental action. The state service officers are chargeable for misconduct
and slack supervision of cases under Gujarat Civil Service Rules (GCSR).

21. The State Administration, particularly functionaries from Chief Secretary downwards
8
are duty bound to take a serious and responsible view on any observation by the Courts
of all levels and thereafter initiate follow up action in the form of departmental action
against delinquent officers, besides taking corrective measures in tune with courts’
views. Rule 271 and 272 of GPM vol-III had laid down action to be taken after scrutiny
of judgments. Unfortunately, Gujarat State authorities did not take any action against
any Govt. functionary so far, in pursuance to critical remarks in judgments narrated in
para-9 of this representation. These judgments uncover a series of conscious,
calculated and purposeful dereliction of duties and misconduct. The misdemeanor by
officers were in flagrant violation of the supervisory and regulatory architecture designed
in GPM vol-III, rule 24, 134, 135 and 240. Comments against police in Naroda Patia
judgment dated 31st August 2012 were also ignored by the Govt. The officers in charge
of Home, Legal Department, General Administration Dept. (GAD) and DGP from the
time of judgments indicting the State Govt. officers in the Best Bakery case (Zahira
Sheik vs State of Gujarat) in 2004 by the Apex Court are liable for this major default
intentionally committed for saving officers whose deviant ways and action had evoked
strictures from various Courts.

22. The authors of 2002 rots in Gujarat and a set of armchair academicians are
circulating a theory that the riots and subsequent subversion of the CJS were due to
system failure in which the Govt. Servants were helpless and could not play any
decisive assertive role due to legal, administrative and logistic constraints. The riots
have been portrayed as a spontaneous outburst of justifiable resentment of Hindus
against the community responsible for the Godhra train fire incident killing 59 Ram
Bhaktas (devotees of Lord Rama). Such a propaganda strategy is fine tuned to
immunize those officers from the Executive Magistracy and police from any
accountability as their acts of numerous omissions and commissions (as narrated in
many SIB reports and several judicial pronouncements), had only promoted mass anti-
Muslim violence, enabling the planners and executors to carry out their anti-national
agenda.

23. Significantly throughout Gujarat those who succeeded to maintain law and order
and upheld the Rule of Law had acted according to the imperative efficacious strategy

9
and the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) elaborated with sequential drills and
exercises in CRPC, Bombay Police Act, GPM vol-III chapter-2, secret circulars
captioned “Communal Peace”, Govt. directives on implementation of Justice Reddy
(1969 riots) and Justice Dave (1985 riots) recommendations on duties of Police and
Executive Magistracy during riots, pinpointed instructions in DGP Shri. K. V. Josephs’
order “Instructions to deal with communal riots (strategy and approach) dated 19-11-
1997, periodically revised area specific Communal Riot Schemes etc.

24. It is noticed that wide spread mass violence against Muslims were noticed only in
those areas where jurisdictional officers from police and Executive Magistracy had
intentionally avoided adherence to above listed SOP, and acted in tune with the alleged
covert scheme of political leadership in the State Govt., for achieving Hindu communal
mobilization to get electoral dividends. This contention can be illustrated with facts and
statistics of riot violence.

25. Among 26 police districts and four (4) Commissionerates, in eleven (11) Districts,
namely, 1) Amreli, 2) Narmada, 3) Ahwa-Dang, 4) Jamnagar, 5) Navasari, 6)
Porbandar, 7) Surat Rural, 8) Valsad, 9) Surendra Nagar, 10) Rajkot Rural and 11)
Kutch-Bhuj, there was no death due to riots, whereas the casualties were negligible
(lesser than toll in the previous communal violence in these places) in five (5) Districts
and in the Commissionerates of Surat and Rajkot cities. The five (5) Districts, are 1)
Bharuch (two deaths due to violence), 2) Junagadh (two), 3) Patan (four), 4) Vadodara
Rural (four) and 5) Bhavnagar (two) and in the Commissionerate of Rajkot city (4 deaths
due to violence).

26. The position of Surat city violence statistics is quite unique. The city, the second
populous city in Gujarat, did report only seven (7) deaths due to violence though, in
previous communal disturbances, particularly in the 1992 post-Babri Masjid demolition
violence, hundreds of citizens were killed. The commendable performance of Surat City

10
Police Commissioner (Shri. V. K. Gupta – IPS 1977) and his team is in contrast to 326
killings in Ahmedabad city and thirty two (32) in Vadodara city in mass violence.

27. It is relevant to note that unlike in areas of major genocidal violent incidents (Naroda
Patia and Gulbarg society in Ahmedabad city, Sardarpura in Mehsana district, Kidiad in
Sabarkhanta district, Ode village in Anand district, Best Bakery located in Vadodara
city) wherein more Muslims were killed in police firing, in Surat city where only seven (7)
people died in riots, while ten (10) Hindus and one (1) Muslim offenders were injured, in
police action. In most of the areas of high voltage anti-minority violence in police action,
overwhelmingly higher number of Muslims were killed. Here is a paradoxical and
inexplicably strange phenomena of about sixty percent (60%) of death in police firing
and seventy seven percent (77%) of casualties of mob-violence being drawn from the
Muslim community. Does not this fact pose a serious question mark on the professional
integrity and the commitment to the Rule of Law of the officers of Police and Executive
Magistracy, in those notorious riot affected areas? It is pertinent that in areas of less
violence also there were many communally sensitive and volatile localities inhabited by
sizeable number of highly communally charged people. [The above data on violence is
taken from base papers of Appendix (v) of my Second Affidavit to the Commission
dated 06-10-2004 (No. 9129/04)]

28. The degree of violence from 27-02-2002 to 07-08-2002 in the descending order of
intensity is as follows: i) Ahmedabad City (326 death in riot), ii) Godhra district (93), iii)
Western Railway (64), iv) Mehsana (61), v) Vadodara city (36), vi) Ahmedabad Rural
District (33), vii) Sabarkantha (32), viii) Kheda (31), ix) Dahod (24), x) Banaskhanta (20)
and xi) Anand (15). Rangewise position of eight ranges is as follows: i) Vadodara range
(125), ii) Gandhinagar (97), iii) Ahmedabad Rural (79), iv) Western Railway (64), v)
Border (24), Junagadh (4), No death in Surat and Rajkot ranges. (These casualty
figures do not include those died in police firing and missing persons). It is remarkable
that Surat city had only seven (7) death and Rajkot city four (4). In Surat city, the death
in communal violence after Babri Masjid demolition was nearly 300. Moreover, in six
11
other districts violence was negligible and death were below four. Highest number of
Islamic buildings, symbols of Muslim culture from the medieval times (dargah, masjid
etc) were destroyed in Ahmedabad range (181 institutions).

29. No in-house exercise, as to how officers (Commissioners of Police, Dist. Magistrate,

Superintendent of Police) in two cities and seventeen districts had succeeded to
effectively maintain law and order even in traditional sensitive areas like Surat city and
Veeraval (Junagadh district) and why in other eleven places, nine districts and two
Commissionerates rioters were given a fee hand – has not yet been done by the Govt.
for fixing up responsibility for culpable negligence of not implementing SOP by relevant
officers. It is notable that in many areas of low level violence in 2002 there were higher
casualties during the post Babri Masjid demolition riots and earlier – were reported. In
fact most of the officers who contained violence were harassed and four of them were
transferred in the thick of riots despite, reportedly, DGP K Chakravarti’s objection. They
were not posted back despite specific directions by CEC in its order dated 16-08-2002.

30. In this context departmental probe should be started against District Magistrates,
SsP, CsP and police range officers of nine districts and two Commissionerates.

31. There are many specific instances of misconduct, display of inadequate integrity
and devotion to duty (as per rule-3 of AIS (conduct) rules and corresponding provisions
in GCSR for state government officials), which had aggravated the agony and material
loss of riot victims and unethically benefited those responsible for 2002 communal blood
bath. The competent authority had turned a Nelson’s Eye to those defaulters. These
delinquencies include the following:

a) Dead bodies of 54 persons (Hindus) killed in train fire incident were entrusted
to private persons namely Shri. Jaideep patel and Shri. Hasmukh Patel – both VHP
leaders, in violation of existing regulations particularly, rule 223 (10-b) of Gujarat Police
Manual volume-III by Godhra district authorities. In case relatives of the deceased were
not available, responsible police/ revenue officers could have taken charge of the dead
bodies till their delivery to the next of kin or cremation. The act of handing over dead

12
bodies to leaders of an organisation (VHP) which had given a call for bandh on 28-02-
2002 against the Godhra train fire incident, and notorious for its anti-Muslim
belligerency, with or without the shield of verbal orders from higher formations, displays
indictable irresponsibility and misconduct. Godhra District Magistrate, Jayanti Ravi IAS
(1991) and SP Godhra, Raju Bhargava IPS (1995) were liable for this.

b) State Cabinet Ministers in-charge of urban housing, roads and buildings, Shri I
K Jadeja and Health Minister Shri Ashok Bhatt had positioned themselves in DGP office
(DGP chamber) and Control Room Ahmedabad city on the VHP’s sponsored bandh day
on 28-02-2002 from fore-noon. Their unauthorized presence in offices of supervisory
police officers were illegal, unethical, even under the verbal orders of the Chief Minister
because these Ministers did not have the powers to interfere in the policing work being
done by officers, who were statutorily empowered to maintain law and order. Their acts
do amount to offences punishable under section 186, IPC – obstructing Govt. servants
in the discharge of their duties. The question of evidence about these Ministers’ active
intervention or meddling with police operations carried out from the operational HQ of
DGP and CP Ahmedabad is not required to establish their culpability in this matter. The
very act of remaining present in police offices without authority, agenda or role in police
work would satisfy the ingredients of sec-186 IPC to proceed against them. DGP and
CP Ahmedabad are responsible for this major dereliction of duty of permitting the
unauthorized positioning of these Ministers in the operational centers of Gujarat police
on the crucial bandh day. Further, as per the Rules of Business, only the H E The
Governor of Gujarat has the authority to entrust the functions of Home Department to
these Ministers. Nevertheless powers mandated by CRPC to police officers can never
be provided to them even by HE Governor. It is relevant to note that on the fateful day
of 28-02-2002, maximum number of people (Muslims) were killed in riots allegedly by
marauding crowds of the Sangh Pariwar.

c (i) As per instructions issued by the General Adminsitration Department, AIS

(conduct rules) and GCSR, Govt. servants are duty bound to extend all assistance to
Govt. appointed Commissions of enquiry. As per the first terms of reference to the

13
Justice Nanavati Commission dated 06 th March 2002 and the second one dated 20th
July 2004, the relevant Govt. servants should have submitted their Affidavits to the
Commission. The Notifications by the Commission had also called for relevant materials
in the form of Affidavits from all concerned. DGP Shri. K. Chakravarti as per his orders
dated 18th June 2002 and DGP Shri. A. K. Bharghava as per his orders dated 16 th
September 2004 and 21st September 2004 directed all officers to file Affidavits to the
Commission.

c (ii) Numerous officers, particularly those in-charge of areas affected by ghastly

violence, DMs and SsP and CsP (two Commissionerates and nine districts) reportedly
did not file Affidavits covering first and second terms of reference by the Govt. to the
Commission. Strangely it is reported that no State Govt. officer had filed Affidavits
regarding terms of reference dated 20th July 2004 which had tasked the Commission to
probe into “the role and conduct of the Chief Minister, other Ministers, police officers
etc”. They had chosen the safe path of denying the Commission the germane inputs
and data on riots. Moreover sec-6 of the Commission of enquiry act-1952, provides
blanket protection to all witnesses from any civil or criminal proceedings based on the
statements made by them before the Commission.

c (iii) The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Ahmedabad had quashed nine
charges imposed on me by the State Govt., for my dismissal from service, relating to my
submission to the Commission, in its judgment dated 28 th September 2007. The Hon’
High Court of Gujarat had refused to issue stay orders on the CAT judgment in favor of
me. Similar favorable orders were issued to Rahul Sharma IPS (1992), by CAT on
similar charges imposed on him by the Govt.

c (iv) The most un-paradonable delinquency, by failing to provide pertinent

information to the Commission was committed by the Chief Secretaries Smt. Swaran
Kant Verma IAS (1965) and Shri. G. Subbarao IAS (1965). It is a self evident truth that
the Chief Secretary as the head of bureaucracy, including police, is the only bridge
linking the state administration with political leadership in the Govt. How could the
14
Commission finalise its report about the role of the CM and Ministers (as per the terms
of reference), without information from the Chief Secretary, the only bureaucrat
attending the State Cabinet meetings and also from those in-charge of legal department
and departments of Home, Health, Transport, Revenue, Panchayat etc. While the Home
Department is directly responsible for policing, legal department is accountable for
appointment of public prosecutors, giving legal opinion for proposals in initiating actions
against media and publishers of objectionable materials etc. and Health, Transport,
Revenue, Panchayat depts. are tasked to do the needful for relief, reconciliation,
rehabilitation and resettlement in post riot situation (the standard of relief and
rehabilitation is part of Terms of Reference dated 20 th July 2004 to the Commission).
Reportedly, relevant officers in-charge of these depts. did not file Affidavits to the
Commission, particularly on Terms of Reference dated 20-07-2004. All of these officers
are delinquents in this matter.

d) No initiative appears to have been taken by the State Govt. to scrutinize the
judgment on the riot cases from the level of Sessions Court to the Apex Court. This is in
violation of general instructions of GAD and rule-271 and 272 of GPM vol-III.
Secretaries in-charge of Legal, Home and GAD depts. and DGP and his jurisdictional
junior officers, who were responsible for investigation of riot related cases, about which
strictures were passed should be held responsible for this grave omission which could
have long term impact on the interface between the Judiciary and the Executive wings
of the Govt. Moreover a casual, cynical and unresponsive approach to the Court’s
adverse observations about Govt. functions would affect the quality of professionalism
of police and standard of justice delivery to the victims of crimes, besides the pitfall of
police officers becoming apathetic to Court’s remarks. The State Govt. functionaries
should have become agile and pro-active since the days of the Apex Court judgment in
Best Bakery case (Zahira Sheik vs State of Gujarat) in April 2004 about observations by
the Court. In this judgment the Court had referred to the Gujarat State officials as the
“Modern Day Neros”

e) The state Govt. did not bring to the notice of organizers of bandh on 28 th Feb
2002 and law enforcers, the directives of a judgment by the Hon’ High Court of Kerala
15
banning observance of bandh. Such an action would have had some effect on potential
bandh supporters and must have put the morale of officers keen on maintenance of
public order, on the upswing. The Chief Sec.Smt. Swaran Kant Verma, Shri. Ashok
Narayan, Sec – Legal Dept, DGP Shri. K. Chakravarti were liable for this default. No
effort was reportedly taken by these officers to counter the ill-effects of the speech by
the Chief Minister Shri. Narendra Modi characterizing the riots as a mere operation of
Newton’s Laws of Motion.

f) Advocates with clear pro-Sangh Parivar leanings and even office bearers of
Hindu bodies were appointed by the Govt. as Public Prosecutors (PPs) to present cases
against accused in riot cases who were largely activists and supporters of the Sangh
Parivar. This was done despite the report about pro-accused posture of PPs by the
State Intelligence Branch in its report dated 24 th April 2002 (Annexure II(i)) to ACS
Home and DGP. Officers in-charge of Legal, Home departments, the Collectors who
recommended the names of pro-Sangh Parivar advocates for appointment as PPs are
responsible for this lapse which had benefited only the accused of the 2002 communal
riots.

g) The Legal and Home departments of the Sate Govt. did not initiate any action
on publishers of handbills, media reports, pamphlets containing materials enhancing
hatred between communities and communal incitement, despite specific proposals from
the field officers and SIB. The officers in charge of these departments at the relevant
time are responsible for this negligence of duties.

h (i) Misleading reports about normalcy in public order, the preparation of

electoral rolls, the standard of rehabilitation of riot victims were presented by Home and
Revenue departments before the full bench of the Central Election Commission (CEC)
on 09th August 2002. This was a case of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. The CEC
pointed out this major default of officers in its order dated 16 th August 2002 – page No.
16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 30, 31, 32, 39, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 59 and 60.

h (ii) Shri. Ashok Narayan, Shri K Nityanandam IPS (1977), who made
presentation on Law and Order, those in charge of the rehabilitation of riot victims

16
particularly, Shri. S. M. F. Bukhari IAS (1982) and Shri. G. Subbarao, who made
presentation on many aspects are responsible for submitting scanty, defective,
misleading and ambiguous inputs to the CEC. The observations against the State Govt.
officials by CEC, a constitutional body, had exposed the intellectual dishonesty,
slackness and insincerity to the Constitution of India of the above mentioned officers.
Suitable action is required to be taken against them.

i (i) The non maintenance of minutes of any of the Law and Order review
meetings chaired by the Chief Minister, other Ministers, the Chief Secretary, the ACS
Home, DGP etc. since 27th February, 2002 to 31st May 2002 (the crucial period of riots),
had largely confirmed the validity of representation by riot victims and observations by
national bodies like NHRC, National Commission for Minorities (NCM), CEC etc. about
the State sponsored, patronized, promoted, facilitated, aided, abetted and enabled
character of 2002 anti-minority carnage. Those who presided over these meetings,
reportedly, were keen to violate the inalterable principles of transparency and creation
of documents for any future probe, review or study of performance of functionaries
mandated to enforce Law for upkeep of normalcy during 2002 riots. Not withstanding
the inference of evil designs behind non maintenance of minutes of crucial meetings,
this lapse per se is an unwarranted avoidable procedural omission, violating rule-3 of
AIS (conduct) rules and provisions of Office Procedure quoted in AIS rules. Unless the
participants in these meetings have memory skill of Adi Shankaracharya and intellectual
stamina of Albert Einstein, how could they remember the nuances of decisions taken
and thereafter monitor their implementation by linear junior officers.

i (ii) Reportedly the real motive behind the non-maintenance of minutes appears
to be subtle dismantlement of responsibility and accountability matrix in the higher
echelons of the State Administration relating to communal disturbances. The desired
devilish objective has already been achieved by the defaulters when neither Gujarat
Police nor the Special Investigation Team (SIT), headed by Dr. R. K. Raghavan did take
cognizance of the offences committed by the senior officers from the rank of Dy. SP to
DGP and Taluka Magistrate to Home Secretary for the wide spread mass violence and
subversion of the CJS due to want of important documents (only two Police Inspectors

17
were arrested for riots by SIT). SIT had pointed out that the non-availability of relevant
documents as an impediment to efficient and focused investigation.

j (i). All riot related cases are grave crimes, whose investigation has to be
supervised by officers of the rank of Dy. SP and above as per rule-134 and 135 of GPM
vol-III. Chapter IV and V of the GPM vol-III captioned 1. Investigation of Crimes and 2.
Detailed procedure regarding investigation, respectively had delineated nugget by
nugget and point by point, sequential steps to be taken in the course of investigation of
various types of crimes. Specific supervisory duties by Dy. SP to DGP are also listed.
But in most of the riot related cases, the police officials unabashedly violated this SOP
which had only resulted in numerous litigations by riot victims, NGOs and even NHRC
asking for investigation by CBI and other special agencies of all riot cases. Appointment
of SIT in March 2008 by the Apex Court was an outcome of these petitions.

j (ii) There was an inglorious instance of the police filing closure reports on 2000
odd riot cases as undetected by not issuing even statutory notice under CRPC to
complainants, who registered the FIR. The Apex Court in August 2004 had ordered
reinvestigation of all these cases. This is an instance of deliberate slack supervision of
riot cases by officers from the rank of Dy. SP to DGP. Unfortunately the State Govt.
through their chosen police officers had torpedoed the investigation of these 2000 odd
cases by pressurizing the complainants and witnesses to go against their complaints
and statements against the accused persons. This has been made a condition
precedent on the riot victims for their rehabilitation and resettlement in the pre-riot
habitats and vocations. Consequently 90% of such reinvestigated cases, reportedly,
had ended in non-arrest of the accused or their acquittal.

j (iii) The Police officers in the upward supervisory ladder in the posts of SP,
Range DIG/ IG and DGP also did nothing substantial to ensure proper investigation of
riot cases, including the reinvestigated cases as per the Apex Court orders, through the
proper use of the system of perusal of case diaries and crime memos of such cases,
periodical crime reviews and crime conferences, police station and SP offices inspection
etc. All relevant jurisdictional officers from Dy. SP to DGP should be made accountable
for this delinquency of violating the laid down procedures and be dealt with suitably.
18
 k (i). On 10th September 2002, the National Commission for Minorities (NCM),
sent a fax message to the Chief Secretary asking for a full text of inflammatory
speeches against the Muslim community during the Gaurav Yatra (Pride Procession)
led by Chief Minster Narendra Modi. The copy of this fax message was sent to me with
a written order by DGP for immediate compliance. In response, I had sent a general
report on Gaurav Yatra including the gist of speeches made by the CM in the yatra on
12th September 2002 to DGP and Home department. In this report, I observed that the
style of language used by the CM at Bahucharaji (Mehsana district) and Chanasma
(Patan district) had wounded the feelings of minority community and due to this reason
there was a likelihood of intensification of communal tension. Soon I was called by DGP
Shri. Chakravarti and he instructed verbally to me to avoid sending a report on the full
text of CM’s controversial speech at Bahucharaji and its audio cassette. I resisted these
orders as it was against the charter of duties of SIB. I also told DGP that Shri Narendra
Modi was one of the persons whose speeches were to be covered and recorded in
verbatim, by SIB as per existing orders and therefore once I received the material, I
would sent the text and cassette to the DGP and Home department. On the afternoon of
13th September 2002, DGP had sent another copy of NCM fax message with a written
instruction, in his own handwriting, as follows “ACS Home told me on 11 th that we do not
have to send any report in this regard. ADGP (Int) be informed accordingly”. This order
was totally in violation of rule-461 of GPM vol-III and other general instructions on SIB
duties regarding communal situation and the supervisory responsibility of ADGP
intelligence. So ignoring this unethical and illegal written orders of the DGP, I had sent
the text of same speech by the CM at Bahucharaji in Gujarati language with English
translation along with the audio cassette on 16 th September 2002 evening. On 17 th
September 2002 night, I was served with a transfer order from the post of ADGP
intelligence to the post of ADGP Police Reforms, an assignment without any charter of
duties, where I continued upto my date of superannuation on 28 th February, 2007. I was
posted as in-charge of SIB on 9th April 2002 and my transfer on 17 th September 2002
was in violation of State Govt. resolution dated 29 th June 2002, fixing a minimum tenure
of 3 years for IPS officers posted in SIB.

k (ii). For issuing illegal orders to me for not sending text of CM’s controversial
19
speech, despite the orders from a national body NCM, DGP Shri. K. Chakravarti and
ACS Home, Shri. Ashok Narayan were responsible and for this delinquent action should
be taken against them under AIS (conduct) rules.

l. The Commission probing into 2002 riots is a fact finding body and not a trial
court hearing the prosecution side and defence in a criminal case. Since the
Commission is tasked to comment on the conduct of the Chief Minister and bureaucrats
during riots as per the Terms of Reference dated 20 th July 2004, no Govt. official can
come in the way of free flow of information to the Commission. So attempt by Govt.
officials with or without the directions of the higher authorities to brief, tutor, cajole,
direct, pressurize, and intimidate a witness who was summoned by the Commission for
cross examination is a gross misconduct and an act of obstructing public servant in
discharge of his lawful functions and also his commitment to truth and integrity. This
being the position in the perspective of substantial law and administrative procedural
directives, the act of persuading and cajoling me by Shri. Dinesh Kapadia, Under Sec.
Home Department, (the supervisory department of all police officers), before my cross
examination by the Commission is a clear misconduct. Shri. G. C. Murmu, Secy. Home
Department and Shri. Arvind Pandya, Govt. Pleader to the Commission had jointly
tutored, pressurized and intimidated me to speak in favor of the Govt. during my cross
examination before the Commission. The audio cassette of both interactions are
submitted with the verbatim version to the Commission and SIT for necessary further
investigations (please see Annexure-III a & b enclosed with this representation).

32. In a frank suo-motto revelation to me by ACS Home Ashok Narayan in August 2004,
the anti-Muslim bias of the administration including judiciary is nicely portrayed. I had
presented the details of this interaction in my ninth Affidavit to the Commission. The
relevant conversation runs thus “Ashok Narayan – Now I am telling you the environment
at that time. All the vakeels on VHP side, All judges, many of the judges were also on
VHP side, right, Doctors also did not treat patients because they were Muslims. In that
situation what can be done?, Tell me. Bail applications neglected. What can we (Home
department) stay on? What can we say? The entire society is like that. PP
again….discussion held with Law Minister.” (Audio recording of the conversation is also

20
available). In fact the above picture presented by Shri. Ashok Narayan is almost like a
extra-judicial admission which would totally falsify the claims of the Govt. and Home
Dept about their effective implementation of SOP.

Conclusion

33. The delinquent officers, responsible for numerous defaults as narrated above,
cannot take the defense for their numerous omissions and commissions that they had
used discretion and followed the principal of subjective satisfaction in following SOP,
regarding their alleged deviant actions because all such actions had facilitated,
promoted, aided, abetted anti-minority violence and enabled the rioters to carry out anti-
minority pogrom in Gujarat. The question as to why the officers, who enforced SOP and
maintained public order effectively in two Commissionerates and seventeen police
districts did not use their discretion in favor of anti-minority brigands remains
unanswered.

34. Justification of defaults on the ground of verbal orders from higher formations also
will not hold water because as per conduct rules, the officers have to get written orders
confirming verbal instructions before carrying out actions beyond their authority and
jurisdiction as per AIS rules.

35. In his recent book captioned “Patriots and Partisans”, eminent historian
Ramachandra Guha had lamented about degradation of public institutions and their
riding roughshod over laws, creating a virtual situation of “the Indian State” becoming
the biggest threat to “the idea of India”. Nearly 20 specific delinquent acts of Govt.
servants narrated earlier had only created favorable conditions for rioters to go on a
killing spree in 2002 in Gujarat. It is an illustration of dismal state of affairs that prevailed
in Gujarat, as painted by Ramachandra Guha in his above mentioned book.

36. The long drawn out (27th February 2002 to 31st May 2002) sectarian riots in 2002
can be compared with the disrobing of Maharani Draupadi in the open Kaurava court
depicted in the great epic of Mahabharata. The undesirable posture of silent approval by
Dhritharashtra, the Emperor and final authority, Bhishma Pitamaha, Dhronacharya etc.
(senior members of the cabinet) towards Duryodhana’s heinous crime is re-enacted in
21
Gujarat riots. During the Gujarat communal butchery, the Rule of Law, the beloved
daughter of our Mother, the Constitution of India, represented Draupadi. The Central
Govt. and the Prime Minister A. B. Vajpayee’s un-empathetic approach to the riot
victims was like that of Maharaja Dhritharashtra who though condemned actions of
Duryodhana and his criminal companions like Dushashana as violation of Raja Dharma
but did not even move his little finger to check or counter them or to penalize them later.
In case of Gujarat, the CM Narendra Modi, who knew the requirements of the Rule of
Law, as a person who became Chief minister after declaring Oath of Loyalty to the
Constitution of India but did not act decisively to contain riots was like Duryodhana, who
had admitted that he was aware of the requirements of righteousness but did not remain
sincere to it, on the other hand Duryodhana had confirmed that he pursued evil despite
a full awareness about the consequences “Gnanami Dharmam Na Cha Me Pravarti;
Gnanami Adharmam Na Cha Me Nivarti”. Pepetrators of violence like Babu Bajrangi
and Maya Ben Kodnani, convicted by court for mass murders in Naroda Patia
represented Dushshasana and other Kauravas. The role of Bhishma Pitamaha and
Dhronacharya were exemplified in the acts of several delinquent acts by officers like the
Chief Secy. G. Subbarao, ACS Home Ashok Narayn – a scholar in Hindu scriptures
who wrote commentary on the Bhagwat Gita, DGP K. Chakravarti etc. Bhishma
Pitamaha when requested by Yudhisthara to join in the battle on the Pandavas’ side,
had expressed his predicament of serving the Kauravas “Men are slave to wealth
(includes power and status) and I am with Kauravas for this reason – Arthasya
Purshodsaha | Dasashtvartho Na Kashyachit | Iti Satyam Maharaja |
Baddhodsmyarthana Kaurave ||” – Bhishmavadhaparvam, 41-42. This Bhishma’s
admission of guilt should explain the motive of above mentioned senior officers.
Working under the system of Constitution of India, Govt. functionaries were not helpless
like Bhishma or Dhrona as the latter were not protected by a Constitution and AIS rules
but were at the total mercy of the whims and fancies of Dhuryodhana. After all three IPS
officers – R. B. Sreekumar, Rahul Sharma and Sanjeev Bhat did get justice from the
higher Judiciary though their ordeals and tribulations are still not over.

37. IAS and IPS officers, drawn from Muslim community, reportedly, did not advance
any evidence to the Commission and investigators from Gujarat Police or SIT so far. Six
22
IAS officers serving Gujarat State during the riots were 1. S.M.F Bukhari (1982) – as
officer in-charge of relief and rehabilitation of riot victims, his work was criticized and
CEC had made adverse observations about misleading data presented by him to CEC
(CECs order dated 16 th August 2002 – Annexure I), 2. A. A. Nagori (1985), Additional
Secretary – Education, 3. I. R. Perizada (1994) – DDO Valsad, 4. J. S. Haldar (1991) –
Collector Gandhinagar, 5. Shamina Hussain (1987) – Dy. Sec. Narmada Water
Resource Dept. and 6. Mohammad Shaheed (1998) – Asst. Collector Godhra. The IPS
Officers were 1. S. S. Khandwawala (1973) – Addl. DGP Training – His house in
Navrangpura in Ahmedabad city was attacked by Hindu mobs, 2. A. I. Sayed (1978) –
Joint Director, State Police Academy, Gandhinagar – On the bandh day, he was
encircled by VHP supporters and attacked and he was saved by the skill and
maneuverability of his police driver, 3. M. O. Khimani (1980) – Joint Commissioner,
Ahmedabad City, 4. F. M. Guard (1982), 5. S. M. Sheikh (1991) – SP Crime, 6.
Samiullah Ansari (1992) – DCP Traffic, Ahmedabad city and 7. Kurshid Ahmed (1997) –
Commandant SRPF Group II, Ahmedabad city – His act of unauthorizedly closing the
gates of SRPF camp near Naroda Patia when local Muslims under attack from Hindu
crowds sought shelter in SRP camp on the bandh day became quite controversial.
Taking advantage of protection given to witnesses under section 6 of Commission of
Enquiry Act, these officers could have submitted relevant information regarding Terms
of Reference to the Commission, particularly about the alienation and pain undergone
by them and agonies of members of their community during the riots. But all of them
have played safe and some of them have become supporters of hidden agenda of the
political bureaucracy in the Govt. One senior IPS officer joined BJP after retirement and
another had played an unworthy role in pressurizing complainants among riot victims to
turn hostile for the benefit of Hindu accused persons. In short, self centered careerism
motivated them to take such a stand at the cost of empathy to riot victims and ideals of
the Constitution of India.

38. The State Govt. would be in a slippery ground if it takes a stand against initiating
departmental action against delinquent officers on the ground of pendency of cases in
the courts on judicial verdicts in which strictures were passed. The Govt. did not wait for
final outcome of cases for taking actions against IPS officers like R. B. Sreekumar
23
(1971), Rahul Sharma (1992) and Sanjeev Bhat (1998) who gave evidence against the
Govt. to the Commission and SIT, uncovering the State sponsored nature of riots.
Strangely 32 officers were rewarded with out-of-turn promotions, post retirement
placements etc. even while their conduct during the riots is still under judicial scrutiny.
Most of these officers were responsible for dereliction of duties and misconduct by
violating SOP and statutory supervisory duties streamlined in GPM and other Govt.
regulations. Details of undue favors and unwarranted punishments were submitted to
the Commission in my Sixth Affidavit in Sep 2010.

39. The morale of officers in Gujarat police and civil administration, who are sincere to
the requirements of the Rule of Law is in a state of steady decline and degradation due
to the above narrated factors. The killing of nearly twenty innocent persons in the
alleged fake encounters by a coterie of police officers close to the political bureaucracy
from October 2002 to April 2007 – when three IPS officers were arrested for extra
judicial killings - was indicative of Govt’s nepotic policy of rewarding those unhesitatingly
deviating from legal framework and their charter of duties for providing political and
electoral capital to the political bureaucracy (former Minister of State for Home Amit
Shah was also arrested for the crime of fake encounters). A strange phenomenon of
competitive and anticipatory sycophancy practiced by unscrupulous and corrupt police
officers to get closer to top political bureaucracy has been noticed since the days of
2002 riots in Gujarat. There is general public outcry against increasing corruption at
grass root level Govt. offices of service delivery, that is, police station, Mamalatdar
Panchayat offices etc, because practically all important executive posts are allegedly
manned by “favourites” of the ruling party. Non-registration of FIRs on property offences
like chain snatching, extortion, thefts and even murders in case of recovery of
unidentified dead bodies with multiple pre-mortem injuries is extensively practiced by
police for projecting a false image of crime control. Macro level false statistics
camouflage the micro level reality of pushing the crimes under the colorful carpet of
propaganda.

40. The Honorable Prime Minister Shri, Manmohan Singh, in his first one day national
conference of Supts. of Police, (1 st September 2005) said that adherence to

24
professional code of conduct is important, necessary and possible for police. He added
that people must have confidence in police professionalism, honesty, integrity and
efficiency. The myriad deeds of illegality and impropriety enacted by several IAS and
IPS officers during 2002 riots and afterwards in Gujarat, were totally contrary to the
above exhortation by the Prime Minister. Effective departmental action against
defaulters in the only right step for redeeming the situation in Gujarat and other places.

41. All Govt. orders are issued in the name of Governor of the State and so in a
precarious predicament of a group of Govt. servants violating procedural and regulatory
instructions, the citizens have no grievance redressal mechanism other than
approaching the H E The Governor. Normally judiciary will not entertain Public Interest
Litigation (PIL) relating to non-implementation of SOP by officials unless there is a case
of injustice affecting directly the petitioner, on the principal of locus standi. The
subversion of the regulatory managerial system by aberrant officers, narrated earlier,
had harmed and debilitated public interests substantially and so I have ventured to
submit this representation for the kind perusal and immediate necessary action by H E
The Governor of Gujarat State.

Prayers

42. The Honorable Governor may kindly direct the State Government for initiating the
following action.

a) Commence the process of departmental actions against officers who failed to

implement SOP relating to the genesis, course and aftermath of communal riots
in 2002.

b) Proceed against all officers who committed professional lapses due to

incompetence or with ulterior motives, in the investigation of riot related cases, by
violating streamlined procedure of supervision envisaged in CRPC, Gujarat
Police Manual and other regulations. A close examination of case papers of riot
cases is imperative in this matter.

c) Start close scrutiny of all judgments on riot related cases from the Special Courts

25
 to the Apex Court and take suitable departmental action on strictures and
adverse observations by judiciary against relevant officers, besides initiating
measures to implement court’s suggestions on energisation of the Criminal
Justice System.

d) Initiate departmental action against officers responsible for various delinquencies

listed in para 31 (a) to (l).

43. A well settled legal position asserts that departmental proceeding for deviations from
and violations of administrative and procedural regulations can be embarked upon
irrespective of the outcome of criminal or civil cases in the same transactions and
issues. State Govt. officials who acted as patrons, facilitators and enablers towards the
enactment of anti-minority atrocities in 2002 and denial of justice delivery to riot victim
survivors are, today, proudly relaxing in Govt. secured sanctuaries of immunity from
criminal prosecution and departmental action. This state of affairs has generated and
sustained an ambience of euphoric permissiveness among all officers who had ganged
up and promoted the planners and executors of riots, besides enfeebling the
professional quality and evidential merit of riot cases for saving the culprits responsible
for 2002 riots from the clutches of law.

44. In this background, the riot victim survivors and agile citizens do ardently crave for
your Excellency’s timely mediation and intervention in the matter for durably re-
establishing a state of stability, order and discipline in the bureaucracy and police in
Gujarat State.

26
45. Ancient Indian wisdom on the administration of justice counsels thus “If one, injured
by others in violation of a law of the Smritis and usage, were to inform the King (here H
E Governor), that becomes a fit matter for judicial proceedings”.

Smrityacharavyapetena Margernakharshitha Pareha |

Avedayati Chendranjo Vyavaharpadam Hi Tat ||
(Yajnavalkya Smriti II – 5)

Hence I submit this representation.

NB: A statement captioned “Chart of delinquency and delinquents” is enclosed as

Annexure-IV

Yours faithfully,

(R.B.Sreekumar)

To,

Dr. Shrimati Kamalaji

Her Excellency The Governor of Gujarat State
Raj Bhawan, Gandhinagar,
Gujarat - 382020

Copy with complements to:

1. The Secretary, Justice Nanavati & Justice Akshay Mehta Commission

Bunglow No. 33. Opposite Police Stadium, Shahi Bagh
Ahmedabad – 380004

2. Dr. R. K. Raghavan IPS (Ret’d)

Chairman SIT, Block No. 11, Jivraj Mehta Bhavan,
Gandinagar – 382010
Gujarat

27