Ahmedabad: It's a case that has repeatedly threatened to confront Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi with whopping consequences for the riots in his state in 2002, in which 1200 people were killed, most of them Muslims. But a team that was studying Mr Modi's alleged role in the riots has allegedly concluded that he cannot be tried for complicity in those riots, the worst in independent India. Here are 10 big facts about the case:
- Huge relief for Narendra Modi - a Special Investigation Team (SIT) has reportedly said there's no evidence to provoke his prosecution in a case that accuses him and other senior politicians of restraining the police from helping those being attacked during the 2002 riots. The SIT's report has been handed last night to a court in Gujarat.
- The SIT was appointed by the Supreme Court in 2009. It is headed by RK Raghavan, who retired as the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation. The team questioned Mr Modi twice on March 25, 2010. He tweeted today, "The history of the world is the history of a few men who had faith in themselves."
- The case against Mr Modi was moved by the Supreme Court in September last year to a trial court in Gujarat. This court will first give a copy of the SIT's report to the petitioner Zakiya Jafri, before passing its order. She said today that this is not the end of her legal battle against Mr Modi. Ms Jafri now seeks a copy of the Gujarat riots case report and has filed a fresh plea.
- The case was filed in 2008 in the Supreme Court by Mrs Jafri, whose husband and former Congress MP Ehsaan Jafri was set on fire during the 2002 riots near his home in Ahmedabad's Gulbarg Society. Nearly 69 people were killed here in 24 hours. Mr Jafri was trying to protect his neighbours from a mob of people.
- The riots in Gujarat began when one coach of a train filled with karsevaks returning from Ayodhya was set on fire near the Godhra railway station on February 27, 2002. 59 people were killed.
- Mrs Jafri first took her case to the Gujarat High Court in 2007. Her petition said that Mr Modi and nearly 60 other politicians and police officers conspired to ignore calls from help, and decided not to interrupt the rioting mobs. She says her husband made several calls to the Chief Minister's Office and others, but was denied assistance. The High Court refused to accept her case, so she then appealed to the Supreme Court, which set up the SIT.
- The SIT told the Supreme Court last year that it had not found evidence against Mr Modi. The court also asked senior advocate Raju Ramachandran to serve as an amicus curiae and interview key witnesses. Mr Ramachandran's report was allegedly different from the SIT's on several key points. So the Supreme Court sent both reports to the trial court in Gujarat and asked it to decide on whether Mr Modi should be tried.
- The SIT has also not found evidence to support the claim of senior police officer Sanjiv Bhatt, who was suspended last year. Mr Bhatt had alleged that on February 27, 2002, the Chief Minister called a meeting of senior police officers where he said that it was imperative for Hindus to be allowed to "vent out their anger." The other policemen who attended that meeting say Mr Bhatt was not present. He was suspended in August last year for skipping work and using an official car when he was not on duty.
- This is an election year for Gujarat and a verdict that absolves Mr Modi of any complicity in the riots will help his campaign, as well as the BJP, which has long argued that its leader has been made a target of political vendetta mainly by the opposition Congress.
- Ahead of the elections, Mr Modi has been holding fasts in different parts of the state - part of what he calls his sadbhavana mission to promote communal harmony. Mr Modi has been trying to establish his secular credentials because the taint of the riots in his home state have kept him from entering the national political landscape.
