Apex court reserves verdict on Sajjan Kumar’s plea against charges

NEW DELHI - The Supreme Court Monday reserved its verdict on a petition by Congress leader Sajjan Kumar challenging the framing of charges against him in 1984 anti-Sikh riot case by the special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court.

Holding its ground, the CBI told the apex court bench of Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice Anil R. Dave that the accused could not go into the veracity of the evidence at the stage of framing of charges.

Such a situation would lead to a mini trial involving adjudication of the veracity, truthfulness and probability of the evidence, said Additional Solicitor General Harin Rawal, appearing for the agency.

Rawal told the court that the clean chit given to Sajjan Kumar by Delhi Police had to taken with a pinch of salt as police had no shred of evidence when it filed the closure report before the metropolitan magistrate then hearing the matter.

Appearing for the riot victim Jagdish Kaur who had lost her husband, son and three cousin brothers to rioters in Delhi’s Palam Colony, senior counsel Dushyant Dave said that in those five days from Oct 31 to Nov 5, the central government abdicated its constitutional mandate of protecting the lives of its citizens.

He said that the abdication of the constitutional responsibility was politically inspired to garner votes of a section of society.

After the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, the Congress came back to power with an overwhelming majority and 2002 poll in Gujarat post-Godhra, brought the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) back to power with overwhelming support, he said.

Dave told the court that the deployment of army too was inspired by political considerations. He said that both in 1984 and 2002 the army was deployed much latter and for obvious reasons,

He cited ten instances from 2003 to 2009 when the army was called in within hours to deal with flood situation.

Sharing the anguish of Dave, senior counsel U.U. Lalit, however, told the court that his client Sajjan Kumar was not named by Jagdish Kaur even as late as 1985 when she had filed sworn affidavit before the commission.

He said that Jagdish Kaur’s every statement was an improvement on its previous statement, and the naming of Sajjan Kumar subsequently was an after-thought and could not be relied as evidence.

He debunked the CBI stand that it could engage in pick and choose of the evidence while framing charges. He said that investigating agency could offer but could not hold back the evidence while framing the charges.