Bhadrapad Krushna Trayodashi
Political conspiracy and misuse of official machinery to protect the miscreants of Godhra train tragedy exposed.
Nanavati Commission report brings out the actual truth putting an end to the six long years of agony and insult to the people of Gujarat.
Here is a comparison of Nanavati Commission and Banerjee Committee reports – One which brings out the truth and other embedded with manipulations and falsehood.
Sr. No. |
Justice Nanavati -Justice Metha Commission |
Banerjee Committee |
| 1. | It is a fullfledged Inquiry Commission duly constituted under the provisions of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952. It is a multi-member commission whose members have been appointed in consultation with the Chief Justice of Supreme Court and Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court. Justice Nanavati was also the Chairman of the Commission which enquired the Sikh riots in the 1984 appointed by GOI. | It is a High Level Committee constituted by the Government of India, Ministry of Railways in exercise of powers vested under Article 73 of the Constitution of India. It was headed by Justice Banerjee and supported by three Technical Officers of the Railways. |
| 2. | Appointment of members of Justice Nanavati & Shah Commission has gone through judicial scrutiny – By the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Justice K.G. Shah and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Justice Nanavati where both the appointments were held valid. | Constitution of Banerjee Committee was held as bad in law and was quashed and set aside by Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat on 13.10.2006. The Hon’ble High Court also passed orders that final report of the committee cannot be published or tabled on the floor of the Parliament. |
| 3. | The Terms of Reference were broad covering all aspects of Godhra incident. | The Banerjee Committee is limited only to Godhra Railway Station incident with weak Terms of Reference. |
| 4. | Enquiry Commission was appointed immediately after the incident. | High Power committee was formed 2 ½ Yrs after the incident just before Bihar elections with political motive. Report was to be submitted within 6 months to coincide with Bihar Election. |
| 5. | During the tenure of 6 long years the Commission has examined large number of eye-witnesses, documentary evidences, expert witnesses (forensic experts) and investigating officers. Commission has received applications and affidavits from 44,475 persons. Apart from this there were 2019 statements and affidavits filed by Government officers. It has gone through large number of these affidavits before reaching the conclusion. All the witnesses were duly cross-examined by the lawyers. | In the case of Banerjee Committee, a handful of passengers and witness were examined within a short period. It had not examined any of the investigating officers or bothered to look in to the case papers on record before reaching final conclusion. No opportunity was given to political parties and other private individuals to be heard in the committee. |
| 6. | The procedure adopted by the commission has been elaborate and as per law to find out the real truth behind the Godhra incident. | It was only an effort to wind up the inquiry in a short time with a political motive. |
| 7. | The commission went in to the facts, circumstances and all possible causes of the incident and the report is based upon concrete evidences and not on mere probabilities and speculations. The commission gave full credence to the scientific report submitted by Forensic Science Laboratory and the railway authorities with regard to the cause of fire, the nature of fire and characteristics of the material used in the burnt coach. The contestants were given full opportunity to cross examine and after taking into account all the above, the conclusion was reached. | No such exercise was conducted by the Banerjee Committee. Only a copy of the report of ‘Hazards Centre’, New Delhi which is a Registered Society whose Board of Governors are private individuals. Even this NGO’s report was prepared after 32 months of the incident. The final observations are based more on probabilities and speculations rather than concrete evidences and scientific analysis.
Though the Committee had procured reports of Gandhinagar FSL and Calcutta FSL they made no mention of these reports in their final observations. |
| 8. | FSL Gandhinagar had based their observations on scientific examination to reach their conclusions. The evidences were collected from the scene of the incident by a team of experts which were packed, sealed and sent to laboratory for detailed examination. Thus, a legal chain of custody was maintained and the entire procedure followed by investigating agencies. The laboratory used all modern and scientific technologies for examination of these exhibits. | No such scientific test or analysis was done by "Hazards Centre " in their report. |
| 9. | Collected all evidences with regard to assault on train by stone-pelting, forcible entry, pouring of petrol and setting it on fire by the way of pushing of rags from outside etc. | The committee ridiculed the "petrol theory" or any ‘miscreant activity’ as absurd. It did not mentioned about stone-pelting or assault on the train when evidences clearly prove the occurance of such incident. |
| 10. | Extensive examination of various theories regarding "fire" was done by the commission before reaching the conclusion. | No efforts were made to examine the experts before coming to conclusion regarding the incident of fire. |
| 11. | Due credence was given to the testimony of RPF personnel and the report submitted by the then DRM of Railways immediately after the incident. Cross examination of such witnesses was also allowed by the commission. | Though the confidential report of the then DRM which was submitted immediately after the incident was mentioned in the interim report, no credence was given to their testimony. DRM’s report was taken on record but was rejected without assigning any reason. |
| 12. | Justice Nanavati-Justice Mehta Commission report specifically mentions the railways and its staff at Godhra did not file any statement or any record which should have helped the commission in finding out how Godhra incident had actually happened. Infact, the commission had to issue summons to the concerned railway officials to appear before the commission. The railway authorities could not produce documents on the ground that they are not available with the railways. | The Banerjee Committee constituted after 2 ½ Yrs after the incident is nothing but a ploy to hide the truth. |
Excerpts from Justice Nanavati-Justice Mehta Commission Report:
It is pertinent to note that In Para-41 of the Commission’s Report the ex-CM of Gujarat Late Shri Amarsinh Chaudhary, the then President of the Gujarat Pradesh Congress Committee had filed an affidavit on 1st July, 2002 before the Commission wherein he had stated that "incident of Godhra is a planned one and is an act of conspiracy. I say that it must be an act of conspiracy because it would not have happened, such carnage could suddenly and spontaneously, "………. " . This clearly supports the findings of Justice Nanavati-Justice Mehta Commission.
Para-227: On the basis of facts and circumstances, proved by evidence, the Commission comes to the conclusion that the burning of coach S-6 was a pre-planned act. In other words, there was a conspiracy to burn coach S-6 of Sabarmati train coming from Ayodhya and to cause harm to the Karsevaks travelling in that coach.
Para-168: All the passengers have stated that attack with stones had continued for 10-20 minutes so that the passengers could not come out of the coach.
Para-218: 140 ltrs. of petrol were purchased by the conspirators on 26.2.2002 to carry out this conspiracy.
Para-223: The conspirators had opened the sliding door of S-6 leading to coach S-7 and entered the coach S-6 through that door. Hassan Lala had thrown a burning rag which led to the fire in coach S-6.
Para-229: The confessions disclosed that Razak Kurkur and Salim Panwala were the two main persons who had organized execution of the plan and what was being done was according to what was planned earlier on the directions of Maulvi Umarji. All acts, procuring petrol, circulating false rumor, stopping the train and entering the coach S-6 were the objective of the conspiracy. This conspiracy hatched by these persons further appears to be a part of a larger conspiracy to create terror and dis-stabilize the administration.
Para 239 (2): There is absolutely no evidence to show that either Chief Minister and/or any other Ministers in his Council of Ministers or Police Officers have played any role in the Godhra incident or that there was any lapse on their part in the matter of providing protection, relief, rehabilitation to the victims or in the matter of not complying with the recommendations and directions given by National Human Rights Commission.
