SC declines to transfer cases outside Gujarat

New Delhi, Jan 8 (UNI) The Supreme Court today declined to transfer three civil suits outside Gujarat, seeking about Rs 22.6 crores as damages from Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi and other senior Gujrat officers for the killing and injury of the victims of the 2002 communal riots in the State.

Petitioners Imran Mohammad Saleem Dawood, a riot survivor, Shameema Dawood and Shireen Dawood, two widows of the victim had sought transfer of three civil suits pending in Sabarkhanta district courts of Gujarat, on the grounds that a free and fair trial was not possible in the State, as defendent number one was the incumbent Chief Minister of the State and no witness would be able to depose freely and without fear.

A bench comprising Justices K G Balakrishnan and D K Jain permitted the petitioner to withdraw their petitions but refused to grant them liberty to approach the Court again at a later stage.

Senior Counsel Indira Jaisingh, appearing for Imran, contended that the Chief Minister was personally responsible for the acts of omission and commission during the riots.

She also pleaded that everyone who had dared to stand up against the rioters has been victimised and in such an atmosphere of terror, a free and fair trial was not possible and the apprehensions of her client are well-founded.

Pleading for transfer of the cases to Maharashtra she also contended that even the Head of Intelligence during the riots - Sreekumar has stated before the Nanavati Commission that there were telephonic instructions from the Ministers not to act against the rioters and Mr Modi had himself accompanied the charred bodies of kar sevaks from Godhra. While turning down the plea of the petitioners to transfer the trial from the District Court to the State High Court, the Court made it clear that it has equal faith on the district judiciary and in fact the disposal of the cases in the district courts is more tedious than in the High Court.

All three petitioners are British nationals and one of the defence taken by the defendent is that a foreign national cannot file a suit for damages. The apex Court said that the trial court was quite competent to decide the issue.

UNI