NEW DELHI, 21 April 2005 — The Supreme Court yesterday refused to entertain an application from Best Bakery case key witness Zaheera Sheikh.
The application questioned the modality of procedure adopted by the apex court-appointed committee probing the veracity of the statements made by her as well as those by social activist Teesta Setalvad.
Zaheera, the main witness to the killing of 14 people in the Best Bakery in Baroda in 2002, had asked that the probe into the veracity of the affidavits by the apex court’s registrar general be stopped and that it be entrusted to a sessions judge. A bench consisting of judges Arijit Pasayat and S.H. Kapadia declined to take on record Zaheera’s application.
Pasayat, heading the bench, told Zaheera’s counsel: “We will not adjourn the proceedings for any clarification. If at all she has any grievance, that can be ventilated after the submission of the report by the committee.”
As a result of the order, the enquiry will continue today. In her application, Zaheera had found fault with the registrar general’s order that she was the subject and scope of the inquiry. Refuting this, she said: “Her conduct is not the subject of inquiry but the subject is the alleged offer of inducements, the manner of inducements and the persons responsible for the inducements.”
Zaheera said the manner in which the inquiry committee had proceeded was contrary to procedural requirements and she asked that the inquiry be assigned to the district and sessions judge, Delhi, or any other judicial officer.
On April 18, the committee in its order said that while Zaheera would be orally examined, written replies would be sought from Setalvad on the ground that Zaheera was not as mature, educated and literate as the social activist.
The order said “the reasons behind calling her for such examination and not calling her for written clarification are known. The inquiry officer has to find out the reasons and persons behind Ms. Zaheera’s change of stand. The nature of most of the questions may speak that written clarification would not serve the purpose.”
