annual report print final.qxd - Asian Centre for Human Rights
annual report print final.qxd - Asian Centre for Human Rights
annual report print final.qxd - Asian Centre for Human Rights
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
INDIA HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT 2005 Gujarat<br />
Shrivastava and others intimidated her and<br />
her family into turning hostile.<br />
11.07.2003: Zahira approached the<br />
NHRC.<br />
31.07.2003: NHRC moved Supreme<br />
Court seeking retrial outside Gujarat.<br />
07.08.2003: Gujarat government filed<br />
an appeal against the trial court verdict in<br />
High Court.<br />
12.09.2003: Supreme Court termed<br />
Gujarat government’s appeal in High<br />
Court as an “eye-wash” and observed that<br />
the state government should quit if it can’t<br />
get the rioters punished.<br />
27.09.2003: Gujarat DGP ordered<br />
inquiry into Zahira’s allegations against<br />
the BJP MLA and others.<br />
29.09.2003: State government filed an<br />
amended appeal in the High Court<br />
admitting that trial was not held in a<br />
conducive manner and seeks retrial and<br />
quashing of earlier verdict.<br />
06.10.2003: Vadodara police<br />
registered a complaint by Zahira’s brother<br />
Nafitullah against Shrivastava and four<br />
others <strong>for</strong> allegedly having threatened<br />
them to turn hostile.<br />
07.10.2003: Bailable warrants issued<br />
by High Court against all 21 accused.<br />
09.10.2003: SC appointed <strong>for</strong>mer<br />
Solicitor General Harish Salve as amicus<br />
curiae in High Court.<br />
21.11.2003: SC stayed trial in 10<br />
major riot cases in Gujarat.<br />
26.11.2003: Gujarat High Court<br />
upheld the trial court verdict while<br />
dismissing government’s appeal <strong>for</strong> a fresh<br />
trial in the case.<br />
30.01.2004: Supreme Court admitted<br />
Zahira’s SLP challenging the High Court<br />
judgement. Gujarat State too moved the<br />
apex court against the High Court order.<br />
02.04.2004: Supreme Court issued<br />
notices to Gujarat Government on Salve’s<br />
suggestions <strong>for</strong> transfer of major riot cases<br />
outside Gujarat and setting up of a special<br />
investigating team to look into riot cases.<br />
12.04.2004: SC ordered reinvestigation<br />
and retrial of the Best Bakery<br />
case in Maharashtra and removed the<br />
public prosecutor.<br />
21.05. 2004: Gujarat government<br />
in<strong>for</strong>med the sessions court Judge Abhay<br />
Thipsay in Mumbai that it had appointed<br />
Atul Mehta and T.S. Nanavati as public<br />
prosecutors. Maharashtra government<br />
announced a set of prosecutors, including<br />
P.R. Vakil, Manjula Rao, Zaheeruddin<br />
Shaikh and S.M. Vora. The sessions court<br />
asked both parties to arrive at a consensus<br />
by 5 July 2004, failing which they could<br />
approach the Supreme Court.<br />
On 5 July 2004: Special court put off<br />
the trial in the Best Bakery case till 19 July<br />
2004 with the Maharashtra and Gujarat<br />
governments unable to resolve their<br />
differences over the appointment of a<br />
public prosecutor in the case.<br />
19 July 2004: Special judge issued<br />
non-bailable warrants against 10 of the 21<br />
accused in the Best Bakery carnage.<br />
9 August 2004: Supreme Court<br />
criticised the Gujarat government <strong>for</strong><br />
appointing public prosecutors who<br />
opposed non-bailable warrants against the<br />
accused to handle the post-Godhra cases<br />
67
Change language