Sanjiv Bhatt

Justice Markandey Katju has pilloried the Supreme Court for its pronouncements on unclean hands of Sanjiv Bhatt in approaching the court. He laments that the Court did not give an opportunity to Bhatt to explain his action before condemning him. Katju's anger is palpable. Says he:

". An upright police officer who bravely took on the crooked Establishment and exposed its misdeeds, has been castigated by the Court in sweeping language which seems calculated to please the ruling party.

All these are serious sweeping and intemperate allegations against Bhatt's character, and so it was incumbent on the Supreme Court to have issued a notice to Bhatt asking him why strictures be not passed against him, as has been repeatedly observed by the Supreme Court itself.

Bhatt was being attacked by the entire Establishment, which included not only BJP politicians but even his own fellow police officers who shamelessly denounced him to please their political masters. Where else could he appeal to but politicians of other parties, NGOs, activists, etc ?

Moreover, in Sanjiv Bhatt's case, there was not even a requirement to make such observations of rebuke against Bhatt, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that strictures should not be passed against anyone unless that is absolutely essential. . Bhatt had filed his appeal in the Supreme Court alleging he was being targeted by the Gujrat govt.for disclosing certain facts about the post Godhra killings of Muslims. At most the Supreme Court could have rejected his plea, but where was the need for berating him and hauling him over the coals ?"

If Sanjiv Bhatt is aggrieved, he has every right to approach the judiciary  to clear his name. It is not clear how the learned former judge is convinced about uprightness of Bhatt. Katju has also stated that there are allegations of bribery against the CJI, H.L.Dattu. A specialist in quantification, he has also remarked that 50% of judges in higher judiciary and 75% in lower judiciary are corrupt. He has claimed that Indian judiciary is beyond redemption.

Modiphobia

It is widely known that the Congress party under the leadership of Sonia Gandhi has been rampantly corrupt. Many leaders like P.Chidambaram and Abhishek Manu Singhvi were feathering their own nests taking advantage of Sonia Gandhi's permissiveness and Manmohan Singh's 'look away' policy. The party did not realise that people's patience would run out if the party members became overly venal.

Nevertheless, the party got one thing right. It realised early that Narendra Modi was one person who could hasten the defeat of Congress in national polls. Ever since Manmohan Singh became the Crime Minister, the party had been virulently targetting Modi as the one-man nemesis for the party. CBI was let loose on Modi; several cases were filed against Modi in various courts. Yet, Modi was not found guilty of any misdemeanour by any court.

It was in such a desperate situation that Sanjiv Bhatt came to Congress' rescue in the year 2009. He claimed that he attended the meeting presided over by Modi on Feb'27, 2002 in the wake of the Godhra riots and that Modi advised the police in this meeting  to go easy on the rioters. This was obviously a serious allegation. Congress took it as a godsend and went hammer and tongs after Modi.

SIT which investigated various allegations against Modi and the Gujarat government trashed Sanjiv Bhatt's claim that he attended the said meeting. However, this did not give the quietus to Congress' crusade against Modi. Now comes the Supreme Court's judgment condemning Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt as a schemer and conspirator. This should have come as a crude shock to Congress leaders. But, they are so busy protecting their ill-gotten wealth that they have no time for introspection or repentance.

Godhra: the unending battle

Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt who was recently dismissed from IPS had been making a lot of accusations against the state of Gujarat in the Godhra case. The state government had initiated criminal proceedings against him. He filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court that the allegations against him should be probed by an SIT monitored by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition (Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt vs Union of India and others) this week. The court made several adverse comments on the conduct of the dismissed police official. It was brought out that he was in collusion with a political party (obviously the Congress) and civil activists. Some passages from the judgment are reproduced below:

"Petitioner had
probably forgotten that he was senior IPS Officer. In case he was
fairly stating a fact after 9 years he ought not to have entered into the
aforesaid exercise and kept away from all politics and activism of
creating pressure, even upon 3-Judge Bench of this Court, amicus and
many others. Thus the entire conduct of petitioner indicates that he
was not acting bona fide and was catering to the interest elsewhere.
Even if we ignore his antecedents vividly mentioned in reply of SIT
for time being, his aforesaid conduct does not inspire confidence."

"45. We are not impressed by petitioner's submissions. It cannot be

said that the petitioner has come to this Court with clean hands.

Firstly the petitioner kept quiet for a period of 9 years as to the

factum of meeting dated 27.2.2002. Then he was exchanging e-mails

for ascertaining the time and presence of the persons at Ahmedabad.

In case he was present in the meeting it was not required of him to

ascertain those facts. Petitioner did not state fact of meeting dated

27.2.2002 in statement recorded by SIT in 2009. The explanation

offered by the petitioner for said omission that his statement was

recorded in the year 2011 before SIT under section 161 Cr.P.C. as

such he made all disclosures. The SIT was same, having same powers

all the time. Petitioner is a senior IPS officer thus the explanation of

the petitioner does not appear to be prima facie credible."

"46. This Court had earlier appointed SIT and petitioner had made

unwarranted and serious allegations on the SIT constituted by this

Court whose performance has been appreciated by this Court a

number of times. Petitioner after keeping quiet for 9 years had taken

Mr. K.D. Panth with himself to the SIT on 25.3.2011 and insisted that

Mr. Panth should be examined in his presence. It was not expected of

a senior officer like petitioner to act in the aforesaid manner. Effort of

petitioner to examine Mr. K.D. Panth on 25.3.2011 in his presence by

SIT was indicative of pressure tactic employed by him. The SIT

ultimately examined Mr. Panth on 5.4.2011 and Mr. Panth has not

supported the stand of the petitioner that he attended the meeting

dated 27.2.2002. Later on petitioner as per his own case, got drafted

and obtained the affidavit of Mr. Panth and Mr. Tara Chand Yadav

and he had provided legal assistance to them and had handed over the

affidavit of Mr. Panth to the amicus curiae appointed by this Court;

whereas Mr. Panth did not turn up to handover his own affidavit. It is

also apparent that the petitioner had acted in deliberation and

consultation with the leaders of rival political party, NGOs. and had

sent the e-mails to the effect that he was not fully exploited by a

counsel of the rival political party while his statement was being

recorded before Justice Nanavati Commission. He had exchanged

e-mails with rival political party leaders and was being tutored by the

lawyer of NGO and its activist. Ghost questions and answers were

also prepared as to what the petitioner was required to speak before

Justice Nanavati Commission. Petitioner has used the media card, has

even sent the e-mails to influence the judicial proceedings of a

3-Judge Bench of this Court and has tried to influence the amicus

curiae. The e-mails also indicate that he tried pressure groups and

tried to invoke media pressure. He sent e-mail account details of the

then AAG to the media channels but they did not oblige the petitioner

as it would not have been appropriate in their opinion to do so.

Petitioner inspite of being a senior IPS officer was interacting with

the top rival political leaders of Gujarat. He also suggested to a

correspondent that he was required to state that he was present when

he was leaving for the meeting dated 27.2.2002. The e-mails of

interactions with journalists, press, media, NGOs., conduct reflected

in e-mails exchanged during the course of inquiry before Justice

Nanavati Commission, made it clear that he has not come to the

Court with clean hands. No relief can be granted if a person

approaches this Court with unclean hands as laid down by this Court

in Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 114."

"the overall conduct of the

petitioner does not inspire confidence."

" Petitioner had

made deliberate attempt to mislead this Court and has enclosed only

the covering text of the e-mails and intentionally avoided the

enclosures because the same would have exposed falsity of his stand"

"Thus the petitioner is guilty of suppressio veri and

suggestio falsi. He has suppressed the enclosures which he ought to

have filed and ought not to have made false allegations in the writ

petition that SIT was exchanging sensitive and confidential

information with the then AAG. It is unfortunate that on the one hand

petitioner has prayed for appointment of SIT and on the other has not

spared SIT appointed by this Court and has made false allegations

against it. The conduct of the petitioner cannot be said to be desirable."