by RVS Mani
On the same day, as a result of grid failure, north India was plunged into darkness and 700 million people are said to have been without electricity that night. The incident was attributed to some failure on the management of the then Ministry of Power. The Power Minister was Sushil Kumar Shinde. Shinde, the Power Minister who had plunged the entire north India into darkness, was rewarded. Believe it or not, he became the new Home Minister! Metaphorically, he was to bring the same darkness in managing the security of the country.
Every day many Indians pray, Tamaso Ma Jyotirgamaya, meaning lead me from darkness to light. But we had a government which was doing the converse. The security of the people of the country was being entrusted to a person on the biggest day of his failure in the Power Ministry. We had a nondecisive Defence Minister in A K Antony and again we were given an indifferent Home Minister. Many from the security establishments could see the design in this. If people were secure, it was by the grace of God.
I was to oversee the projects of the National Building Construction Corporation. One of its ongoing projects at the time was the New Moti Bagh General Pool Residential Accommodation project, a green site which had to be brought to a closure. This project was being monitored by Secretary (Urban Development). He was a resident of the residential colony and hence had first hand information of the shortcomings. There were many challenges of maintenance, water billings, stray dogs etc. Also one religious structure had come up behind the Leela Hotel which had bought the land in New Motibagh GPRA area on auction. The sale of land to the hotel enabled financing of the project. I got the orders and as per established and proper procedure, had the religious structure demolished in its embryonic stage.
This prompted an officer of the DDA to contact me for guidance. He was under pressure from certain groups who were claiming a religious structure as an ‘ancient and historical’ one. There was lot of political pressure. I suggested to him to locate the satellite images of the year 2008-2009 etc and place it on record. The papers were put up to Tejendra Khanna, LG, who was the Chairman of DDA. The LG upheld the decision that it was a new religious structure and then it was demolished. It is a different matter that on that very day, the LG was replaced by the Vice-Chancellor of Jamia Millia Islamia University, Najeeb Jung.
I also expedited the land use rights for the DMRC Phase III project. Actual process of allotment involved elaborate procedures and would have taken a long time. I helped them get the right of early entry and usage, so that the project could meet deadlines. Soon, I acquired the image of a very positive and result-oriented officer.
Back to the Ishrat Jahan case
However, the wheels of my fortune changed.
On 21.6.2013, I received a call from a Special Investigation Team of the CBI, Ahmedabad, asking me to appear before them on 22.6.2013 to record my statement.19 It was the team which was investigating the Ishrat Jahan case. I curtly told them that they better send their formal request to Secretary (Urban Development). Accordingly, they sent a formal request to the Secretary’s office. The Secretary was on an official visit to London. The Staff Officer to the Secretary spoke to him over telephone and obtained his orders, and told the Joint Secretary that I could respond to the CBI request. Accordingly I got a ticket to Ahmedabad by early morning flight on 22.6.2013. What transpired at Gandhi Nagar between myself and my able friend Satish Verma, IPS who posed as the Inspector General of SIT, is all over the media and is now a matter of public record.
19 After the killings, an investigation was launched based on allegations that the description of the incident by the police was false and the killings were deliberate and unlawful. The police team involved in the incident had been led by DIG DG Vanjara, an officer who spent eight years in jail for his alleged involvement in the extrajudicial killing of another person, Sohrabuddin Sheikh. Five years later, in 2009, an Ahmedabad Metropolitan court ruled that the encounter was staged. The decision was challenged by the State and taken to the Gujarat High Court. After further investigation, in 2011, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) told the High Court that the encounter was not genuine, and the victims were killed prior to the date of the staged encounter.
Why do I say Satish Verma ‘posed’ as the IG of SIT? He has not denied this in spite of it being in the public domain. But later, at leisure, when I was trying to locate the authority of the SIT, I chanced upon the Gujarat High Court Order of 1.12.2011. There had been several orders prior to this, constituting and revising the SIT. But I could not access any High Court Order after this date on the subject. The order of the Gujarat High Court was very clear and specific. Satish Verma, a police officer who was a part of the first SIT, had a clear role. He was not to conduct any investigation. The fresh investigation for the reconstituted SIT was to have been conducted by a threemember committee of IPS officers to be assisted by an officer not less than the DIG level from the CBI. Satish Verma’s role was to be limited to the extent that he was supposed to ensure that the SIT investigation does not unduly go adverse to Ishrat Jahan.
Hence, Verma had no right to question me. No authority. One of the reconstituted SIT members should have questioned me. This is purely as per orders of High Court dated 1.12.2011:
62. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, the following directions:
(a) Mr.R.R. Verma, Chairman of SIT (present)
shall register another/fresh FIR on the basis
of his final (8th) report to the effect that
the alleged encounter is not found to be
genuine and for causing death of the deceased
and consequently for the alleged offences
under IPC and other provisions of the
relevant laws.
HC-NIC Page 161 of 165 Created On Thu Jul 21 12:47:49 IST 2016
CR.MA/15981/2010 162/165 JUDGMENT
(b) The aforesaid FIR shall be filed by
Mr RR Verma, Chairman, SIT with the CBI,
having jurisdiction for the crimes committed
in Gujarat State, within a period of two
weeks from the date of pronouncement of the
order and the same shall be registered by the
concerned officer of CBI.
(c) CBI shall thereafter take up the
investigation at the earliest and shall make
an attempt to complete the same at the
earliest.
(d) CBI shall entrust the investigation to
the team of its officers headed by an officer
not below the rank of DIG. During the course of investigation, the said team of
investigation shall be at liberty to take
help/assistance of Mr.Satish Verma, IPS (1986 Batch, Gujarat Cadre), Member of the present SIT in order to get clues for investigation
and further incidental aspects of the
investigation. However, it is clarified that
the final decision shall be of the CBI as
HC-NIC Page 162 of 165 Created On Thu Jul 21 12:47:49 IST 2016
CR.MA/15981/2010 163/165 JUDGMENT referred to herein above.
(e) After the registration of FIR by the
Chairman of SIT, the record of the
investigation made by the SIT shall be handed over to CBI by the Chairman of SIT.Court Order
(f ) After the registration of FIR and after
handing over the entire record of SIT to CBI, appropriate report shall be submitted to this Court by the Chairman of SIT. It is only
thereafter that the SIT shall stand
dissolved.
(g) The State Government shall spare the
service of Mr.Satish Verma as and when so
desired or required by the CBI for helping
the CBI to provide clues for further
investigation or any other matter related
thereto.
(h) Further investigation of C. R. No.8/2004
of Crime Branch Police Station shall be
transferred to CBI, within one month after
the registration of the FIR by CBI as
directed herein above. The State Government HC-NIC Page 163 of 165 Created On Thu Jul 21 12:47:49 IST 2016
CR.MA/15981/2010 164/165 JUDGMENT shall issue appropriate orders/notification
for such purpose. CBI thereafter shall file
appropriate report based on conclusion of SIT as per its 8th Report in the concerned Court, but the full details and the relevant
documents shall be produced only after
investigation of the aforesaid another/fresh
FIR is completed and appropriate Report is
filed in the concerned Court for
another/fresh FIR.
(i) It is also observed and directed that in
the event during the course of investigation
of the aforesaid another/fresh FIR or
complaint vide C.R. No.8/2004 of Crime Branch Police Station, the CBI is required to take
any action against any Member of SIT, the
same shall not be taken without prior
permission of this Court.
(j) All the record, reports and other
material supplied by the SIT be sealed
properly and be kept in safe custody of the
Registrar General of this Court.
HC-NIC Page 164 of 165 Created On Thu Jul 21 12:47:49 IST 2016
CR.MA/15981/2010 165/165 JUDGMENT
63. All the aspects of present application shall get concluded as per the aforesaid directions ordered herein above save and except that on the aspect of consideration of the matter for initiation of action under the Contempt of Courts Act separate orders shall be passed by this Court.
(Jayant Patel, J.) (Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J. Vinod) HC
Satish Verma had got me to come to Ahmedabad without the knowledge, perhaps, of the investigating SIT officials. As I waited in his chamber, I learnt that another State police officer, P Gurjar, was being harassed by Satish Verma around the same time in the adjacent room. She had submitted that first report, saying it was an ‘encounter’. Further, while for two minutes, when I had respite to go to the rest room, I saw a simple man being physically slapped by the CBI team. The victim was some Madan or Manojbhai. He was the owner of some Shakti Garage in Surat. He too had been summoned to the SIT office to be questioned. Due to some hindrances he had been delayed. The CBI officials were upset because they had called him at 11.00 am and he had arrived late.
Later I came to know that the entourage of Ishrat Jahan, Javed Sheik and other two Pakistani nationals had come from Nashik to Surat enroute to Ahmedabad to accomplish their mission. Their car broke down at Surat. They got the car repaired at this Shakti Garage. Monoj Siddhpura was the owner of this garage. Basically, as per information, they left Surat about 9.00 pm. They took seven-eight hours to cover a distance of about 270 km and reached the outskirts of Ahmedabad in the early hours of the morning. After they were accosted, the crossfire took place.
After a lot of acrimony with Verma, I was dropped at the airport that evening. I took an evening flight to Delhi. On 24.6.2013, I filed a report with my seniors. I had only submitted the report to my seniors in the Urban Development Division. I learnt that this report was placed before the Secretary (Urban Development). It was later sent to Union Home Secretary. Contents of this report are now available all over the net.
One thing that happened in the aftermath was not very pleasant. I was being chased by unknown people again. On the personal front, every acquaintance including many colleagues no longer mingled with me. Very few answered my calls, that too on landline. Then my immediate senior, M Ahmed, who was a sympathiser of the victim started berating me on every occasion.
He manipulated the first dispute against me on 7.8.2013. There was a case in which the department had to convey the position to a lawyer as to what is the land rate in respect of a particular parcel of land. The policy in this regard is that the highest of the DDA rates would be taken into account, some zonal rate or circle rate would be considered and of course, the ruling rate in the market. Stating this policy position, I had asked the technical division, which is the repository of this information what was to be conveyed. The response from them was ‘x- rate is Rs.xxxx per sq. mtrs’. My natural conclusion was that this was the highest and applicable rate, as per the policy. But it was not and I was framed for this mistake.
Thereafter another case of dispute was opened. In this case, there was some confusion regarding a succession chain and I had sought the opinion of the Law Ministry and based on the their input, I had taken a decision. Here the L&DO’s refrain was, why did I consult the Law Ministry?
A third dispute was soon contrived. In this case, the Chief Architect (who was senior to the L&DO) under the same Ministry and local municipality had recommended change of land use in a certain dispute. On the downward journey from the Chief Architect, the file had been seen by me and I amended the lease conditions, based on this recommendation. But this was also called into question.
After so many disputes surfacing, I thought, Ahmed, the Joint Secretary and Khalid Bin Jama, Minister Kamal Nath’s PS, were trying to cook my goose.
At the same time, I found a Deputy Superintendent of Police from the CBI, a man named Jayant Kashmiri, landing up in my office regularly on every Wednesday, which is marked for the public grievance redressal. On the first day when he appeared, I asked him what was his case? He introduced himself and said, Director sahib ka kaam hai. When I wanted to know, aisa kya case hai, he said it did not pertain to this office. Thereafter, every Wednesday afternoon, he would come to my room, occupy the chair opposite and not allow me to function. He would also inform all and sundry that he was from the CBI and try to damage my reputation. This fellow was also chasing me outside the office, which I learnt later.
There were other related unhappy incidents happening in my life. My son had settled down in the auto sector in Chennai with a job with a prominent automobile group. Even as a beginner, he was doing very well. It is a matter on the records of the corporate group. One fine day, my wife received a call from him. He appeared very upset. He had been asked to resign. No reasons were assigned. The top management personnel had called him up and asked him to resign. Accordingly, he submitted his resignation and was relieved on 14.12.2013. He told us, a colleague from the organisation had told him that it was to do with the CBI! We did not know the CBI had jurisdiction over private sector employment, or that it is mandated to intimidate kids, unconnected with parents’ jobs. He returned to Delhi, very upset. He soon found another job in the automobile sector again, where he had made a name for himself. However, CBI harassment did not end with this.
In December 2013, my mother was staying with us. My wife was away in office that Saturday morning. This DSP of the CBI, Kashmiri landed in my house. Being an extremely foggy morning, we were all huddled in the inside room. This fellow came with his staff or goons (I do not know). They created a ruckus. They started throwing things in the sitting room. This totally traumatised my mother who was 87 years old. Their voices, their demeanour—everything about this DSP and his team was repulsive. That day my mother collapsed out of shock and tension. After many trips to the ISIC hospital and after we moved her away from my house, away from the bad memories, she died on 24.1.2014.
The long shadow of the Ishrat Jahan case
I resumed office from 24.2.2014. Again, pressure on me began to be applied in a subtle manner. The general elections to the Lok Sabha were coming up in May. The incumbent government wanted me to change my statement in the Ishrat Jahan case.
I was being asked to admit that Joint Director (IB), Rajinder Kumar, had brought a counter-affidavit, which I had signed and filed in the Gujarat High Court as a government affidavit, saying the government agreed with the initial Gujarat Police reports. Otherwise, the four people killed in the Ishrat Jahan encounter, including the two Pakistani terrorist, were paragons of virtue.
My only refrain was that the MHA (CBI and or any other
MHA agency) should produce a document to say that there was no encounter and counter the earlier documents and I would sign the new document.
I had taken a similar stand in 2009. Rather my stand has always been that. In 2004, the JeD mouthpiece Ghazwa Times claimed Ishrat was a fidayeen. Later, when I said this, the same mouthpiece said ‘she is a victim’.20The political advantage of this case was to be reaped by one entity. Was there any arrangement, understanding or some such thing in place?
There was a case of denotification of waqf land in Delhi which was going on for some time. The then British government had acquired this waqf land through the Land Acquisition Act of the time between 1912-1915. The incumbent government wanted to denotify the entire acquisition process after 100 years,
20 https://www.hindustantimes
in 2012-13, and give the land back to the Delhi Waqf Board. The proposal was first rejected by Attorney General Ghulam
Vahanavati. Later, a proposal to review the opinion was sent to the
AG. There was pressure on the AG from members of the Central
Waqf Council, Rehman Khan, Minister of Minority Affairs and
Kamal Nath, Minister for Urban Development. The AG changed
his view. A proposal based on the revised legal opinion was placed
before the Cabinet and got approved.
Since it takes a while for the minutes to be issued, I said,
I would sign the denotification order only after the minutes
confirming the decision was available on the file. As an interim
measure, a letter was obtained from the concerned Secretariat
confirming the decision. On 5th March 2014, as I was leaving
the office, I was called by the Joint Secretary. He took me to the
room of the Minister for Urban Development. I was told to toe the
line by the Minister’s PS, Khalid. The speaker phone was kept on