Author: Kartikeya Tanna
Publication: Myind.net
Date: October 16, 2015
URL:          https://www.myind.net/supreme-court-thrashes-sanjiv-bhatt
 
[Note from the Hindu Vivek Kendra:  Please see our comments after the article.]
 
Earlier this week, in a significant judgment by the country's apex court, Sanjiv Bhatt, the expelled former IPS officer on whom the hopes of everyone hating our Prime Minister rested, has been severely indicted by Supreme Court. He was indicted for his collusion with a rival political party, media, pressure groups and NGOs to influence not only the judiciary, but the Amicus Curiae in the 2002 riots case and for his (rather lousy) attempts at what Supreme Court described as "recreating" his movements on February 27, 2002.
 
That night, as is widely known, was when Narendra Modi, the then Gujarat Chief Minister, called a meeting of top bureaucrats of the Gujarat Government to take stock of the law and order situation in the likelihood of riots breaking out following barbaric murders of 57 karsevaks and families returning from Ayodhya after a ceremony in a coach of the Sabarmati Express in Godhra. Bhatt had alleged that, firstly, he attended the meeting at Modi's residence and, secondly, Modi instructed the top bureaucrats to let Hindus vent their anger. Indeed, as SIT noted in its closure report, Bhatt has described Modi's alleged instructions in three different ways at different testimonies.
 
With the Supreme Court calling out his machinations, frauds and lies, any hopes of the hate-Modi brigade in pinning him down in judicial proceedings get crushed right here. So far, three people directly alleged that Modi made those utterances at the meeting - former MoS late Haren Pandya, former State DGP RB Sreekumar and Sanjiv Bhatt.
 
Pandya had been the originator of this theory. He had reportedly confessed to a private tribunal formed by Teesta Setalvad's NGO under the condition of confidentiality that officers who attended the meeting at Modi's residence later told him of Modi's alleged instructions. Not only the SIT, even the Amicus Curiae who (utterly wrongly) opined that Modi could be prosecuted, found no evidentiary value in that secret testimony.
 
There was also a problem of hearsay in Pandya's assertions since he himself was not present in the meeting. RB Sreekumar's claim too suffered from the same hearsay problem - a theory which was contradicted by all attendees of that meeting. The only individual who made similar claims (albeit with three different versions, as stated above) and also claimed to have attended the meeting was Bhatt. In order to keep his testimony believable, Supreme Court observed how Bhatt made attempt after another to "recreate" his movement on that night.
 
Also, while the SIT Closure Report stated that there was no maintainable case against Modi, an Amicus Curiae report prepared by senior advocate Raju Ramachandran opined differently. That opinion, i.e., that Modi could be prosecuted, was based largely on Bhatt's assertions. This author has written an elaborate critique of the Amicus opinion in Firstpost explaining how Ramachandran uses double negatives and 'could-haves' to support a weakly premised conclusion.
 
However, despite the infirmities and deficiencies in the opinion, the fact is that in the judicial process of the case against Modi (currently at the High Court level), Ramachandran’s opinion continued to be pressed by those wishing to see Modi behind bars in opposition to SIT's closure report. With Supreme Court's rather unequivocal condemnation of Bhatt's acts, it seems the weight of Ramachandran’s opinion which, as stated earlier, was predominantly based on Bhatt's assertions reduces to a significant extent. Indeed, HC need not be influenced by Supreme Court's observations. Nonetheless, Supreme Court's detailed analysis of Bhatt's bases of claiming what he does is foolproof.
 
The cottage industry's attempts against Modi, at least, judicially, appear to be unsuccessful. The theory that Modi instructed his officers not to come in way of rioting Hindus is officially dead.
 
In reaction to this scathing indictment, many are questioning on why Bhatt should not be tried for perjury. Sure, this is a fit case for perjury. However, trying him for that offence would be akin to trying someone who has committed a murder for assault. Supreme Court has lifted the stay on proceedings against Bhatt on the FIR filed by KD Panth, his driver constable, for coercing and intimidating him into falsely testifying that he drove Bhatt to Gandhinagar on the night of February 27, 2002.
 
Bhatt desired that Panth would testify before the Supreme Court appointed SIT that he drove Bhatt to the meeting. An affidavit initially submitted by Bhatt on behalf of Panth stated that. However, in his testimony before the SIT, Panth retracted his stand and alleged pressure by Bhatt. So lousy was Bhatt's attempt at having Panth testify as the former wished, that simple records prove that Panth was not even in Gujarat between February 25 and 28 of 2002. Not only that, Bhatt took Panth to the then President of the Gujarat Congress and Chairman of the Legal Cell for the preparation of his initial affidavit. Bhatt should, therefore, be tried with the full force of law for this crime.
 
His lies, frauds and machinations don't need the force of law to be dealt with. Redundancy, irrelevance and the fact that those once banking on him have thrown him under the bus is a much bigger punishment.
 
"Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. MyIndMakers is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information on this article. All information is provided on an as-is basis. The information, facts or opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of MyindMakers and it does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same."
 
Comment:

It is not only Sanjiv Bhatt that is thrashed, but the whole major (not cottage) industry that put him up, including financing and coaching him, but also all those who tried to project that his statement had merit.  This includes the Amicus Curiae, Raju Ramachandran, the likes of Teesta Setalvad and her husband, journalists like Rajdeep Sardesai and Barkha Dutt, many foreign journalists who thought the liars were genuine source of information, the foreign embassies that based their actions on what the liars told them, etc.  Unless all these are held responsible for vitiating the social atmosphere in our country, they will continue with their propaganda in the future as well.