The Supreme Court on Tuesday scheduled a proceeding on April 13 on the petition of Zakia Jafri, wife of slain MP Ehsan Jafri, questioning the SIT’s acquittal of then-Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi in the 2002 riots, saying it would not consider any appeal for adjournment on the next day.
The matter will be heard sometime in April, according to senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who is representing Ms. Jafri. Several lawyers are currently involved in the Maratha reservation litigation, which is being heard by a five-judge Constitution bench.
However, representing the Gujarat government, State Attorney Tushar Mehta rejected the motion for adjournment and requested that the case should be heard next week. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the SIT (Special Investigation Team), also objected to the letter of adjournment, arguing that the case should be settled. “Schedule this lawsuit for trial on April 13th.” “No appeal for adjournment will be entertained,” the bench, which included Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari, ruled.
The Supreme Court scheduled the case for hearing on April 14, 2020, saying it had been adjourned several times and would have to be heard at some point.
Prior to the above, Jafri’s lawyer told the Supreme Court that a notice should be given in the plea because it applies to a supposed “larger plot” that occurred between February 27 and May 2002.
On February 28, 2002, Ehsan Jafri was one of 68 people killed at Gulberg Society in Ahmedabad, a day after the S-6 Coach of the Sabarmati Express was set ablaze in Godhra, killing 59 people and stirring riots in Gujarat.
Ms. Jafri petitioned the Supreme Court in 2018 to overturn the Gujarat High Court’s October 5, 2017 order dismissing her appeal against the SIT’s verdict.
The appellant lodged a complaint after the SIT offered a clean chit in its closure report before a trial court, which was rejected by the magistrate without acknowledging “substantiated merits,” according to the plea.
It also said that the high court had “failed to appreciate” the petitioner’s argument, which was unrelated to the Gulberg case at Meghaninagar Police Station.
