Supreme Court Comes To Modi’s Rescue, Rejects Riot Widow Zakia Jafri’s Open-And-Shut Case On Modi’s Involvement In Mass Murder

In a blatantly partisan ruling and blow to justice, India’s Supreme court rejected a plea against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and upheld a biased ruling that Modi committed no wrongdoing during the 2002 Gujarat riots in which over 2,000 people, mostly Muslims, were killed

This ruling ended riot widow Zakia Jafri’s 16-year long pursuit to get justice for her husband, former Congress party MP Ehsan Jafri who was killed during the riots, as the court called her claims “devoid of merit.”

India saw one of its worst outbreaks of religious violence in 2002 when Modi was Chief minister of Gujarat. More than 2,000 people, mostly Muslims, died after a train fire killed 60 Hindu pilgrims.

In December 2021, Ms. Jafri requested a fresh investigation into the large conspiracy behind the violence. She also accused investigators of working to protect conspirators. The court withheld judgment on the case in December 2021, despite hearing detailed arguments from Ms. Jafri, an investigation team, and others.

Initial investigations were done in 2008 by Gujarat police, and a special investigation team appointed by the Supreme Court, and Modi was cleared of any wrongdoing in 2012 by the court.

Show-Cause Notices Served To Families Of Those Accused In Communal Riots As They Face House Demolitions

Several families of those accused of inciting communal violence during protests in Uttar Pradesh on June 10 have been served with fresh show-cause notices.

The protests in question were in response to now suspended Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson Nupur Sharma’s hateful and vile remarks against the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

The notices were served to the families by engineers who work for the Saharanpur Development Authority (SDA), and say that the properties of the accused violate provisions under Section 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.

Each show-cause notice states that the dimensions of the properties indicate that the properties have been constructed illegally. Families were ordered to appear before the SDA by June 24, to register and plead their case on why their properties should not be forcefully demolished.

The SDA said failure to appear will be considered as no response, and under the law the property will be demolished.

The homes of two accused have already been demolished in the city.

Both the families and lawyers of the accused allege that these show-cause notices have been backdated to harass the accused and their families. Some of the notices were dated for June 10, which was the day that FIR’s were filed against the accused.

These demolition drives are not new. Despite inconsistencies in the case, the home of prominent Indian activist, Afreen Fatima was demolished in Prayagraj after authorities accused her father, Javed Mohammed of being the mastermind behind the violence on June 10.

Karnataka High Court Rules That Casteist Abuse Is Unfounded If It Does Not Happen Publicly

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that casteist abuse that is not made in a public setting will not qualify as an offense under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

This ruling revoked a case against a person who alleged in 2020 that he was abused in the basement of a building where the victim was present with his co-workers.

Karnataka High Court judge Justice M. Nagaprasanna, alluded that the basement of the building was not a place of public view and the only people who claimed to be present were the victim and other employees.

“Hurling of abuses is clearly not in a place of public view or a public place for the Act to be attracted in the case at hand,” said the High Court of Karnataka.

In the incident which allegedly took place in 2020, one worker, Rithesh Pias allegedly made casteist remarks against another worker named Mohan in the basement of the building where they were employed under Jayakumar R. Nair.

Karnataka High Court judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna, said in his verdict that the two factors to consider in the case were that the basement was not a place of public view, and the only people who were present was the victim, other employees, or friends of the victim.

The court also found that Pias had previously disputed with Nair and filed a stay against the construction of the building. It added that due to the nature of the dispute created a clear link of the chain of events.

This background information was used to revoke the case.