by MUKUL DUBE
This is about “Citing lack of intent, SIT lets Modi off riots hook” by J. Venkatesan, *Hindu*, 10 February 2012.
The Special Investigation Team headed by R.K. Raghavan is said to have concluded that it found no “prosecutable evidence” against Narendra Damodardas Modi. Given that it had been told by the Supreme Court that it was free to append to its report the findings of Raju Ramachandran, amicus curiae, which included the observation that “there was ground for prosecuting Mr. Modi under various sections of the IPC”, was it not duty bound to make recommendations about who could find “prosecutable evidence” and how?
Just how wide or narrow were the terms of reference of the SIT? Why should we not come to the obvious conclusion from the fact that, having appointed the SIT, the Supreme Court saw fit to appoint an amicus curiae also?
Mukul Dube can be reached at uthappam@gmail.com