The Curious Case of Sanjiv Bhatt’s Sacking & 2002 Godhra Riots
There are some stories in Gujarat which don’t require any special investigation. Just a cursory look at the facts is sufficient.
So when the Criminal Investigation Department of Gujarat Police suddenly swooped down on dismissed IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt on Wednesday, to arrest him in a 1996 case, it may not have surprised him. Only that the charge on Bhatt this time, that of framing a lawyer in a narcotics case some 22 years ago, is not as flimsy as the one that straightaway cost him his job of 27 meritorious years.
It was in 2015 when Sanjiv Bhatt was flabbergasted to find a Union Home Ministry memo delivered to him stating that he was dismissed from duty
His crime? ‘Unauthorised Absence From Duty’. This followed an ex-parte departmental inquiry without anyone seeking his official explanation. He has been denied his pension and other service benefits.
Sanjiv Bhatt’s ‘Unauthorised’ Absence from Duty
And what was he actually doing when he was absent from duty allegedly without permission? Bhatt was deposing before the Justice Nanavati Commission of Inquiry appointed by none other than the Gujarat government. And what was the Justice Nanavati Commission of Inquiry probing? It was inquiring into the 2002 Godhra and post-Godhra communal violence in Gujarat, in which many alleged the complicity of the then Narendra Modi state government. Sanjiv Bhatt was among those. His depositions and affidavits before the Nanavati Commission, the National Commission for Minorities, and the Supreme Court contained incriminating material suggesting the state’s complicity and deliberate inaction during the 2002 violence.
When the 2002 communal violence broke out, Sanjiv Bhatt was the Deputy Commissioner in-charge of Internal Security at the State Intelligence Bureau.
He was one of the first officers to report that the 27 February 2002, Godhra train burning incident could spark off possible retaliatory violence. It did happen and nearly 1,000 people, mostly Muslims, were killed in the span of a week.
The Gujarat Police received country-wide condemnation for not being able to prevent the largescale violence despite intelligence tip-offs.. Much later, Bhatt sparked off controversy when he claimed that at a high-level meeting on the night of 27 February 2002 at the then Chief Minister Narendra Modi’s official residence in Gandhinagar, senior police officials were told to let people vent their anger for 72 hours and avenge the Godhra train-burning incident.
Bhatt’s Bold Testimonies
Bhatt’s reports and advisories as an officer in the Intelligence Bureau were presented before various commissions and courts as his evidence of state complicity and administrative inaction during 2002.
Bhatt was included as a key witness in the 2006 complaint filed by Zakia Jafri, the widow of slain MP Ehsan Jafri, who was killed along with 38 others in the Gulbarg Society massacre, on 28 February 2002.
The refusal of the Gujarat Police to treat this complaint as an FIR was challenged in the Supreme Court by Zakia Jafri in 2008. Besides deposing before the SIT that was inquiring into Zakia Jafri’s complaint, Bhatt also filed an exhaustive affidavit in the Supreme Court alleging attempts of the SIT in shielding the powers-that-be, including Narendra Modi.
The Special Investigation Team appointed by the Supreme Court, dismissed his allegations and filed a closure report, giving a clean chit to Narendra Modi and other powerful functionaries of the state. This closure report is currently under challenge before the Gujarat High Court, and Sanjiv Bhatt remains a key witness to the alleged role and function of the state administration in the 2002 pogrom.
State Protection to Bhatt’s Family Withdrawn
Bhatt went to school at the Hill Grange High School in Mumbai, and is an alumnus of St Xavier’s High School, Loyola Hall, in Ahmedabad. An IIT-Bombay graduate, Bhatt cleared his civil services examination with a top rank and chose the Indian Police Service (IPS) when he was 23, in 1987. He was allotted the Gujarat cadre.
Less than two months ago in July, the BJP-controlled Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation demolished around 92 metres of Bhatt’s house stating that it was illegal.
The demolition was carried out round-the-clock for one full week. Bhatt’s wife Shweta – who had contested elections on a Congress ticket from Maninagar in 2012 – had filed a petition in the Supreme Court, challenging an order of the Gujarat High Court ordering the demolition. Within an hour of the apex court rejecting the petition, the AMC team arrived with bulldozers and began razing the property.
Meanwhile, at around the same time, the state government withdrew the security cover given to Sanjiv Bhatt and his family.
Other Incarcerated IPS Officers in Gujarat
Sanjiv Bhatt is not alone to have faced the wrath of the powers-that-be for standing up to the BJP government in Gujarat. Take two senior IPS officers of the Gujarat cadre, Inspector General of Police Satish Verma and DIG Rajnish Rai, for instance.
After Narendra Modi took over as Prime Minister, Verma was shunted out as Chief Vigilance Officer in the North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd, Shillong, Meghalaya, and Rai as CVO in the Uranium Corporation of India Ltd (UCIL) at Jaduguda, Jharkhand.
The two have clearly stated in their petitions that they are being harassed for doing their jobs diligently.
Courtesy: www.thequint.com
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Nicobar Tribal Council Alleges FRA Violations in Great Nicobar Wildlife Sanctuaries
Sri Vijaypuram (Port Blair): The Tribal Council of Little and Great Nicobar has alleged fresh violations of the Forest Rights Act in the notification of three wildlife sanctuaries linked to the Centre’s ₹92,000-crore Great Nicobar Island project, even as the Calcutta High Court is set to hear petitions challenging the mega project over similar concerns next month.
The Union government had, in October 2022, notified three wildlife sanctuaries in parts of Little Nicobar Island, Menchal Island and Meroe Island for the conservation of leatherback turtles, megapodes and coral ecosystems. The move came after the government acknowledged that the proposed infrastructure project on Great Nicobar Island would affect coral colonies and nesting habitats of endangered species.
However, the tribal council has maintained that the sanctuaries were declared without consultation with the Nicobarese communities who traditionally inhabit and manage these islands.
In a letter dated April 23 addressed to the Assistant Conservator of Forests of the Nicobar Forest Division, the council reiterated its opposition to the sanctuaries and objected to the formation of a committee to determine eco-sensitive zones around the protected areas.
The council said its chairman had not been consulted before being included in the committee and was informed of his membership only a month after the committee was constituted.
The three notified sanctuaries include the Leatherback Turtle Sanctuary in parts of Little Nicobar Island, the Megapode Sanctuary covering the entire Menchal Island and the Coral Sanctuary spanning the whole of Meroe Island.
According to the council, Menchal and Meroe islands hold deep cultural and spiritual significance for the Nicobarese community, which believes the islands are inhabited by the spirits of their ancestors.
The council demanded that the sanctuary notifications be revoked and the eco-sensitive zone committee dissolved, alleging that both decisions were taken against the wishes of the indigenous community.
Meanwhile, Jairam Ramesh has written to Tribal Affairs Minister Jual Oram alleging violations of the Forest Rights Act in the process of obtaining consent for diversion of forest land for the Great Nicobar project.
Ramesh argued that consent should have been obtained through the Tribal Council representing the Nicobarese communities instead of through Gram Sabhas representing settler families. He also questioned how the government-controlled Andaman Adim Janjati Vikas Samiti could provide consent on behalf of the Shompen community, classified as a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group.
He urged the Tribal Affairs Ministry to intervene and seek withdrawal of clearances granted for the project under the Forest Rights Act.
Earlier, Ramesh had also written to Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav alleging that environmental impact studies for the project were conducted in haste and without the detailed seasonal assessments mandated under environmental laws.
The dispute dates back to 2022 when the Andaman and Nicobar administration initiated the process for notifying the three sanctuaries before holding Special Gram Sabhas for diversion of forest land linked to the Great Nicobar project.
In May that year, the administration invited objections and claims regarding the proposed sanctuaries. Subsequently, on July 19, the Nicobar Deputy Commissioner certified that no objections or claims had been received.
The tribal council later wrote to the district administration stating that the notification process was carried out without ensuring that residents of Little Nicobar Island were informed as required by law. It alleged that no public announcements seeking objections were made in villages such as Bahua, Muhincoihn and Kiyang, whose residents traditionally use and manage parts of the notified areas.
The council said the Nicobarese community had protected the islands and wildlife for generations through customary practices and traditional belief systems.
It further argued that the sanctuaries would interfere with long-standing rights over forests and coastal areas. They noted that these areas are used for rituals, plantations, collection of forest produce, construction of huts and canoes, harvesting medicinal plants and worship.
In November 2024, the council objected to draft Island Coastal Regulation Zone plans, demanding basic infrastructure, instead of proposed eco-tourism activities in the sanctuaries. The council demanded better public restrooms, jetties, water facilities, pathways, and mobile connectivity.
The Nicobar administration issued a clarification in May 2025, stating that the sanctuaries would not affect hunting rights available to Scheduled Tribes in the Nicobar Islands. The council, however, rejected the clarification, stating that their dependence on forests and coasts extended far beyond hunting activities.
Earlier this month, a Bench led by the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court dismissed preliminary objections raised by the Union government against petitions challenging the diversion of forest land for the Great Nicobar project. The matter has now been listed for final hearing in June.
