Gujarat govt spokesperson challenges Ishrat Jahan report(Video)

In this video, Gujarat government spokesperson Minister of Health and Family Welfare, Shri Jaynarayan Vyas addresses media in Ahmedabad and declares government of Gujarat’s stand on Ishrat Jahan encounter probe report given by Metropolitan Magistrate SP Tamang. Given below is the transcript of the video:

“Yesterday after Justice Tamang report, you wanted to know that on the bases of facts, what the state government has to say on this. I think, if we want to review this report, we can’t do that and say about it properly without connecting the backgrounds of those who were involved in this. However we believe that on technicality ground, Justice Tamang’s report is not valid at all and the state government would challange it. But we also want to put some facts before you. And these facts that we are going to share with you are not on the bases of the findings of the state government .Whatever we would tell you is on the bases of affidavit filed by Government of India’s Ministry of Home Affairs in special criminal application no.822 of 2004 Samima Kausar vs Union of India and others.”

“The whole thing started when Mr. M.R.Gopinath Pillai filed a petition for justice in Supreme Court. The Supreme Court directed him to go before the Gujarat High Court and Gujarat High Court on the bases of facts, appointed a probe team led by Shri Pramod Kumar (additional general of police) on13 August 2009. Justice Tamang was also ordered to start the work on his report on 13 August only. Honorable High Court sought the report before 30 November 2009. Incidentally it happened that Justice Tamang was also said to do inquiry and he submitted his report on 7 September 2009. Normally, a process of natural justice demands that those who are accused should get opportunity to put their side. But such opportunity was not given.”

“So considering two points, the Tamang report is bad in law:(1) When honorable High Court had already appointed a high-level committee and directed to give verdict within a prescribed time, then parallel probe by any official of any court under its jurisdiction on same points is not appropriate. And (2) that Law of natural justice demands that those who are accused should be given chance to represent their side.”

“I would like to add third point in this, that such type of report can be given under Criminal Procedure Code 176. This code deals with only custodial deaths. But this incident was not custodial death case. And therefore it is not covered under the jurisdiction. Also if you connect this probe with 174(3) para 1, then the court can appoint probe only when a married woman dies within seven years of marriage or if her cause of death is unknown. So neither 176 nor 174(3) apply in this issue.”

“This is third issue not good in law and the whole matter is bad in law and therefore we will challenge it.”