Gujarat riots: South Carolina dismisses ex-IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt’s petition

It dismissed Bhatt’s petition to hand over to a special investigation agency (SIT) a perjury case in Gujarat, in which he is accused of forcing a constable to lie to back up his charges against Modi.

Bhatt, who became famous for crossing swords with the state establishment, alleged that former Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, now prime minister, told police officials to “let Hindus vent their anger” after the Sabarmati Express carrying Hindu pilgrims was torched in February 2002. The manner in which he acted is apparent from the aforesaid emails and need not be repeated.

It was double-whammy for Bhatt as the bench not only rejected his plea for probe by a SC-monitored SIT into a slew of “motivated” FIRs against him, but also lifted the stay of his trial in two cases relating to coercing a witness and hacking the then BJP-led government’s email account. The court said he had “probably forgotten that he was senior IPS Officer, his conduct indicates that he was not acting bona fide and was catering to the interest elsewhere”. Calling his bluff, the court said Bhatt kept quiet for nine whole years and then started exchanging e-mails with a few others to ascertain and re-create their movements on that particular night to give the false impression that he was with them at the meeting.

Senior advocate, Indira Jaising and lawyer, Prashant Bhushan, who appeared for Bhatt, had alleged a collusion among top State Government functionaries, the then Additional Advocate General, the then Minister of State for Home and a few lawyers for the accused and sought a Court-monitored SIT probe into Bhatt’s claims. It said Bhatt was in close touch with “top rival political leaders of Gujarat” in the background of the 2002 riots, and his actions were directed against the then Gujarat government. With the Supreme Court verdict, Sanjiv Bhatt and his patrons stand completely exposed.

His email exchanges with journalists also suggested how he used “media card and sent emails to influence the judicial proceedings of a three-judge Bench and has tried to influence the amicus curiae”.