The Supreme Court-appointed special investigation team (SIT) re-investigating nine 2002 Gujarat riots cases has withdrawn police and para-military protection to all the witnesses, and retired judge Jyotsana Yagnik, after reviewing the threat perception along with government officials from the Centre and state.

“After careful consideration at every level, including the DGP (director general of police) and the home department, it was decided to withdraw the security. In the last 15 years (since the formation of the SIT), no witness has been assaulted so far and no one has been threatened,” SIT member A K Malhotra told The Indian Express.

Only Zakia Jafri, the widow of Congress MP Ehsan Jafri who was killed inside the gated Gulberg Society along with 68 others, who filed a complaint against then chief minister Narendra Modi, continues to be protected by the SIT, officials said.

The Gujarat government and the SIT provided security to 159 people across eight riot-affected districts in the state. Judge Yagnik, who adjudicated the Naroda Patiya massacre case, and Jafri were being provided protection by the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). Judge Yagnik continues to be protected by the Gujarat police personnel given the threats she has received.

“This was a witness protection programme only meant for witnesses, and not judges or lawyers,” Malhotra said.

SIT Superintendent B C Solanki, in a letter dated December 13, 2023, wrote to all the district and city police chiefs informing them that the SIT protection was being withdrawn from the witnesses in their jurisdiction. The letter added that the respective police stations were “directed to stay vigilant and protect the witnesses in their area”.

A top SIT official told The Indian Express that the decision to withdraw the CISF was taken on November 9, 2023, and 126 CISF personnel deployed to protect the witnesses and patrol the riot-affected areas were withdrawn. “The remaining 134 personnel were withdrawn on December 13,” the official added.

The eight districts where witnesses were protected were Godhra (Panchmahals), Vadodara, Anand, Ahmedabad city, Himmatnagar (Sabarkantha), Mehsana, Western Railway (Vadodara) and Gandhinagar. The nine cases included the Godhra train burning case, the Naroda Patiya massacre, the Naroda Gam massacre, the Gulberg Society massacre, the Sardarpura massacre, the Dipda Darwaja massacre, the Prantij British nationals’ killings case, and Ode massacre I and Ode massacre II.

“The decision to withdraw the protection to witnesses was taken after reviewing the same right from the Centre and state levels. The protection was there till 20 years and now trials of the cases are over and the cases are at the level of high court or Supreme Court,” an official from the SIT’s witness Protection Cell said on the condition of anonymity.

The official also confirmed that the protection given to judge Yagnik was withdrawn after a review found no threat perception. The official added that out of the nine trial judges, only Yagnik was provided protection and this continued for 10 years even after her retirement in 2013.

When contacted, Yagnik refused to comment on the development.

In May 2015, The Indian Express had reported that Yagnik had received 22 threat letters and ‘blank phone calls’ at her residence after delivering the judgment in August 2012 in the Naroda Patiya massacre case where 97 people were killed. In her judgment, Yagnik had convicted 32 people, including former BJP minister Maya Kodnani and Bajrang Dal leader Babu Bajrangi. Earlier, Yagnik’s security cover had been scaled down from Z-plus to Y category and she had taken up the matter with the state government.

Yagnik had also partially conducted a trial in the 2009 Ahmedabad serial blasts case and was also a designated judge under the now-repealed Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA).

The SIT official added that Jafri has three CISF personnel in her security detail “but she duly calls us and asks us to withdraw them during her travels to the US. She is an elderly lady and was the complainant in the case and thus she continues to be protected”. The SIT official also added that the trials in all the cases were complete and were “under appeal” at various stages.

In an order of May 2009, the Supreme Court had placed the onus of security of the witnesses on the SIT, then headed by former CBI director R K Raghavan. “It is therefore directed that if a person who is examined as a witness needs protection to ensure his or her safety to depose freely in a court, he or she shall make an application to the SIT and the SIT shall pass necessary orders in the matter and shall take into account all the relevant aspects and direct such police official/officials as it considers proper to provide the protection to the concerned person. It shall be the duty of the State to abide by the direction of the SIT in this regard,” the Supreme Court had said.

The security coverage included “ensuring safe passage for the witnesses to and from the court precincts; providing security to the witnesses in their place of residence wherever considered necessary; and relocation of witnesses to another state wherever such a step is necessary. The SIT was appointed the “nodal agency to decide which witness require protection and the kind of protection to be made available to them”.