| Font Size |
They have also sought a direction to the panel to submit its final report before the Governor and not the government.
According to the petitioners, the government has amended the Commission’s terms of reference while including to assess the role played by Modi and other ministers during the 2002 riots. However, so far, the Commission has not summoned Modi.
The petitioners further say that the Commission submitted its first report before the government, and so far, no action has been taken on the same.
The petitioners have also sought a direction to the Commission to direct the government to provide the documents sought by Bhatt related to the riots.
A division bench has kept the petition for hearing on October 5.
Almost all Fundamental Rights have been violated by Gujarat Government during and after riots of 2002. Mr. Sanjeev Bhatt has a very valid point in dragging before the Commission and courts. Gujaratis appreciate his courage and guts.
Any one who can help to harass Modi becomes a hero for Congress and its purchased Media-Houses,may it be Bhatt or even Soharabuddin.They become hero and all their wrong deeds are pardoned in the eyes of Congress.Even Courts should apply same logic of compensation for religious structures damaged in Kashmir,even though it may not help getting in good books of ruling party at the Center as would happen by bashing Modi's actions.
Nothing works for Congress in Gujarat and now in India after exposure of Robert Vadra. What a sorry state for ruling family.
These scathing observations were made by the court while ordering compensation for more than 500 religious structures damaged in the state during post-Godhra riots, on a petition filed by Islamic Relief Committee of Gujarat (IRCG).
%u201CIt will also encourage the religious bigots to destroy religious and other places of worship of the economically weaker section for the purpose of establishing their superiority over the others.%u201D
The court also said that such a policy could suggest that %u201Creligious places should take up arms in their own hand because in the event of destruction of those places, no financial help would come from government.
The court held that the policy adopted by the state government restricting compensation only to damaged residential and business premises and not extending it to places of worship was violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution. %u201CThe policy of the state government taken in defence is one of evading the constitutional responsibility and will bring anarchy in the society, and thus, is detrimental to the establishment of the principles and the tenets of our Constitution,%u201D reads the order.
The HC, in its verdict delivered yesterday, deplored the fact that no explanation had been given by the state government for not placing annual and other reports of the HHRC on restoration of religious structures before the Assembly till today despite receiving them in early 2005. %u201CSuch grave lapse on the part of the state government amounts to clear violation of Section 20 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993,%u201D an order by the Division Bench of acting Chief Justice Mr Bhaskar Bhattacharya and Mr Justice JB Pardiwit reads.
LAST WEAPON AND LAST HOPE, MOST LIKELY, IN THE HANDS OF CONGRESS??
