This is further to my earlier posting about how CBI selectively leaks the so-called evidences in Gujarat Home Minister Amit Shah case and how media channels play it up as ‘Exclusive’ and ‘Breaking News’. It is a clear case of puting so much unwanted and unclear data in front of public so that a common man with no knowledge of the case and with a clear bias towards any Indian politician would be forced to think that ‘ since Amit Shah is a politician, a minister, he must be guilty !!’ This is clearly an agenda put forwarded by CBI, the ruling party in the centre and media channels shamelessly support it.
Here is a question- answer interview of prominent Gujarat based lawyer Devang Nanavati, who is officially not a lawyer in the Amit Shah case, but as a BJP spokesperson has given his and his parties views on the case. The Interview is by Ms. Sheela Bhatt of Rediff.com. Sheela Bhatt has earlier written this unbiased piece about Amit Shah and presented the true picture of the case. Incidentally Devang Nanavati was the first runner up of the LEAD India Campaign Show conducted by TOI group few years back.
Q : Those who have read news reports about the Sohrabuddin encounter case and have seen five videos of the sting operation would like to believe that Amit Shah’s case is not even defensible.
First of all, I can’t comment as his lawyer. I will speak as a BJP member. First, these cassettes are subject to verification. Second, they are showing only bits of it. We don’t know in which context the conversation is taking place. Shah has already given the statement that these tapes are apparently doctored. The court should decide its authenticity and we must know when these sting operations were carried out. Was it before the encounter or after? And under whose instruction were these operations carried out? Let us not pre-judge the issue, let the court decide.
Q : The tapes may have been doctored, but the details of the phone calls Shah made suggest his links with the accused.
A home minister talking to police officers, it is possible. Whether it is against protocol or not we can keep arguing, but the fact that phone calls from person A to person B don’t establish what the subject of the conversation was. It is a bit far-fetched to imagine what conversation could have taken place. A mere list of phone calls is not sufficient evidence to convict somebody. I think it is not even sufficient enough to ‘charge’ somebody who was the minister of home in the state.
Q : What about the statements made by Raman Patel and Dashrath Patel, the Ahmedabad builders, indicting Shah?
The BJP has already stated that the Congress and central government is pressurising the CBI. It is easy to manipulate two builders in Ahmedabad who themselves have a long record. Their past is murky. Why did they not come out till now? They have not said there was pressure to keep mum. According to their own story, they carried out the sting operation long ago. Till Shah was arrested they didn’t speak to the media. Whatever the Congress spokespersons say today, the next day those events will be presented either by the media or CBI. Is it a coincidence? This is creating doubts and giving credence to what we have been saying — that this case is entirely stage-managed by the Congress.
Q : What about the broader issues? One, the Gujarat government has accepted before the Supreme Court that the Sohrabuddin encounter was fake.
There is such talk in the affidavit filed at that stage. I don’t have the records to let you know more about it. I also don’t know in what context the affidavit was filed. Whether it was a fake encounter or not is one thing, and whether the home minister is involved or not, is a separate issue. We should differentiate between the two. Are we talking of an encounter or the minister’s involvement? Just because the encounter is fake doesn’t mean the minister is involved.
Q : The issue of men in khakhi taking the law into their hands…
Let me ask a counter question. There have been more than 5,000 encounters in this country. Over 1,700 encounter-related complaints are pending in various courts and before the Human Rights Commission. More than 800 encounters took place in the last few decades in Uttar Pradesh alone. More than 400 police encounters took place in Maharashtra. At least 900 encounters took place in Punjab. None of these have come to trial as has the Sohrabuddin case. We have never heard that anyone has been convicted for these thousands of encounters. No policemen have been found guilty or even arrested as it has happened in Gujarat. In Gujarat, the controversy is being created about nine encounters. We are making a hue and cry about Sohrabuddin who was a known confidante of (fugitive gangster) Dawood Ibrahim and (slain gangster) Abdul Latif.
He was wanted by the police in at least five states. Many more AK-47s was recovered from him than were recovered from (26/11 terrorist Ajmal) Kasab and his gang. Why are you not talking about 1,700 encounters about which strong suspicions have been raised? You want to pick and choose. You are selective in applying the law. When it comes to Gujarat, when it comes to Mr Modi, you want a different set of laws to be applied. Please ask this question to those governments in power who have known about more heinous and more number of encounters.
Why is Gujarat being targeted? The Supreme Court said that because the investigation requires to be done in five states, let it be done by the CBI. The apex court was right. But where is the investigation in Andhra Pradesh? Sohrabuddin was also wanted by the AP police.
Q : (Gujarat police officer) Geeta Johri has done an intensive investigation into the Sohrabuddin case and the details of the Kausar Bi murder also came to light.
(In a quick tit-for-tat tone) Did you read Geeta Johri’s investigation report?
Q : No. I have known whatever became public when the Supreme Court heard the case. And we have read the news reports that carried reliable reports of the case.
You have not read the actual report filed by Johri nor have I read it. Why comment on it?
Q : But we have covered the case…
I am sure you were briefed by the CBI.
Q : How do you explain the killing of Kausar Bi?
Who says Kausar Bi was killed? She is ‘alleged’ to have been killed.
It is not proved in a court of law that she has been killed. That is a charge, and that charge has to be proved. We can’t have it both ways.
Once the matter is in court, then you should go by the rule of law and the court.
These are allegations and the charges. There is an allegation that Kausar Bi was killed. It has not been established as a matter of fact that she has been killed. The fake encounter case is related only to Sohrabuddin.
Q : Amit Shah took such a long time to appear before the CBI…
Let us decide the timeline. On July 21, the summons was served at the residence of the minister of state at 11 am to appear before the CBI in two hours. Is it a long time?
How would you know ahead of time that the CBI is going to send you a summons? When we said it is a short time for us, then they said they can give time for the next day. Amit Shah asked for the copy of a questionnaire. He wanted to consult his party leadership, his government and his lawyers. This is a five-year-old case. He wrote to the CBI that he wants to cooperate. He wanted to verify his ministry’s records.
The CBI was so eager and impatient to question Shah that they gave him just two hours notice. But when he appeared before the CBI, they arrested him within three minutes and produced him before the magistrate in 15 minutes, and for the next two days they didn’t even ask him a single question. Without questioning Amit Shah they prepared the chargesheet of 30,000 pages and it was kept ready before he reached the CBI office.The exercise was a facade by the CBI. This proves that the CBI’s charges against Amit Shah were politically motivated. Our allegation against the CBI is absolutely correct, that the Congress manipulates it.
Q : Former Deputy Superintendent of Police N K Amin’s lawyer has requested the court to allow him to turn an approver. Is it worrying Amit Shah?
Amin has filed an application that will be heard on August 2. We will have to see on what ground he is acting. The Supreme Court has laid out certain guidelines regarding Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which has a section relating to the turning of an approver. After so much time that has gone by after the investigations started, if someone wants to be an approver, then the court has to see with great circumspection. Because if an accused wants to go free at the cost of another co-accused, the matter can’t be taken lightly.
We have full faith in the court that they would see the point here. I would not like to discuss the merits or demerits of the case.
Q : There was a sting operation recorded inside the jail where arrested police officer D G Vanzara is talking about Shah’s involvement in the case with another arrested police officer.It was allegedly a CBI sting operation where the tape recorder was smuggled inside the Sabarmati jail by another accused.
Again, I have not had the benefit of hearing that recording. One has to verify the audio. One has to see the legal evidentiary value. The CBI can present anything as evidence. But the court will decide its evidentiary value.
See, hypothetically, even if we say that two co-accused are talking to each other and a third accused is overhearing and secretly recording the conversation, still the conversations of the co-accused cannot become ground for conviction. Here we are going into the legality of the case. The matter is pending before the court. Let’s not discuss them.
Q : Mr Nanavati, you must have gone through the chargesheet.
No. I haven’t gone through it. It was given to Shah’s lawyer. It will take time to read 30,000 pages. The CBI has given it to the media in advance, and that’s what we can see.
Don’t you see the game that the chargesheet was given to the media much before the court ordered the CBI to give it to Shah? Only when Shah’s lawyer said that unless you give the chargesheet, Shah would not be able to cooperate in the case was the chargesheet handed over to him.
Q : How is Amit Shah doing?
He should be alright. Amit Shah is a fighter.
The above Interview was published originally on Rediff.com
Tags: amit shah case, bjp, bjp lawyer, bjp spokesperson, cbi, congress government, devnag nanavti, geeta johri, Gujarat Home Minister Amit Shah, kausar bi, lead india, misuse of CBI, rediff interview, sheela bhatt, sohrabbudin case
Yeh Mera India 