The Special Investigation Team (SIT) is likely to submit a progress report on the preliminary probe on a complaint against Chief Minister Narendra Modi and 62 others in connection with 2002 Gujarat riots in a couple of days, SIT sources said.
The SIT, constituted by the Supreme Court to investigate the Godhra train carnage case and eight other post-Godhra riot cases, was also directed by the SC to examine the complaint by Zakia Jaffery and submit report in three months.
Zakia, who's husband ex-MP Ehsan Jaffrey was killed during the 2002 riots in Gulburg Society along with 39 others, has alleged that Modi, his cabinet colleagues, police officials and senior bureaucrats aided and abetted post-Godhra riots in which over 1000 people were killed.
A day after the High Court dismissed a petition challenging the inquiry, the sources said SIT Chief R K Raghavan will be submitting the progress report to the Supreme Court in a couple of days as the three-month deadline ends on July 27.
"The probe into the complaint will continue until further orders from the apex court," they said. SIT has till date recorded statements of Zakia, co-complainant Tista Setalvad and few other witnesses.
Sources said that none of the persons named in Zakia's complaint has been interrogated by the SIT. Besides Modi, Zakia has named the then ministers Gordhan Zadaphia, Ashok Bhatt, Police Commissioner P C Pande and others.
Yesterday, the Gujarat High Court had dismissed a petition filed by former MLA Kalu Malivad challenging the probe against Modi and others.
More From This Section
The SIT had told the High Court that it was conducting 'preliminary inquiry' into case while replying to the petition.
It had said that they are doing inquiry which is done before registering a complaint, to find out the truth about the allegations made in the complaint.
Raising legal question on the probe being carried out by SIT, Malivad had contended that the apex court had asked SIT to "look into" the complaint and that doesn't empower it to investigate as per provisions of CrPC, as there was no FIR in this matter.
Appearing on behalf of SIT, senior counsel K G Menon had submitted before the court that according to the SC order their job was to find out the truth with regard to the allegations made in the complaint. As the SC order had stated that SIT needed to take necessary steps as per law, a preliminary inquiry in the matter was permissible, and that what SIT was doing, he said.
The petition was dismissed by the High Court stating that since SIT was working directly under their supervision of Supreme Court no relief can be granted.