The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict in the plea filed by Zakia Jafri, wife of former Congress Member of Parliament Ehsan Jafri, challenging the clean chit given to Prime Minister Narendra Modi by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) in relation to the 2002 Gujarat riots..The matter was heard at length by a Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar..Below is a summary of the arguments made by the parties..Counsel for the petitioner Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal claimed that the SIT did not examine all the material available and that its investigation showed bias. He argued that the State aided in propagating hate."The point here is that the dead bodies were flashed on the TV channels in that state, that obviously led to the anger....Material was circulated to push for economic boycott of Muslims. Mutilated pictures of Sabarmati Express, pamphlets of do-it-yourself brutalities were circulated. The material was given to the SIT, they never looked at it," Sibal stated. .He further argued that the accused police, bureaucrats and politicians were exchanging messages over mobile phones, none of which were seized or their contents examined. .Sibal also mentioned how certain Gujarati newspapers propagated hate. "Sandesh carried a report that Muslims returning from Haj would be dangerous to Hindus. They painted them as terrorists - stated that ISI is behind Godhra. This is so full of hate. Story titled 'Indiscriminate shooting from Fatehganj mosque' was completely fabricated...Photographs of mangled bodies were published in the papers, which is prohibited by law. This is 28 February- about 10-12 Hindu girls were pulled out by religious fanatics. In small print, it said that police did not indicate any such incidents happened. But the damage to psyche was already done," Sibal submitted..He read out extensively from the reports submitted by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the Concerned Citizens Tribunal, a body headed by former Supreme Court judge, Justice Krishna Iyer..He quoted Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) Gujarat Chairman who said that, "It had to be done. In the morning we sat down and prepared the list. We were not prepared. We don't like it, but we are terribly angry. The rioters were well-bred Hindu boys.".Sibal referred to the report submitted by then Additional Director General of Police RB Sreekumar which stated that reports were sent to the Home Minister but no response was received. Sreekumar had specifically pointed out that extremists from VHP and Bajrang Dal were causing issues and that the media played a mischievous role in promoting violence. .Further, he mentioned police superintendent Rahul Sharma's report which stated that a Bhavnagar newspaper called for Hindus and Hindu organisations to retaliate, but no action was taken on the same. Sibal also referred to the Tehelka tapes, a sting operation through which the role of the Gujarat government was allegedly exposed."Prima facie proof is there that conspiracy was there, especially from Tehelka tapes. But unless people are questioned, how will you reach a conclusion? Therefore I can't answer this question and that is why we are asking for an investigation ," Sibal said. .Rohatgi refuted the claims made by Sibal that dead bodies were paraded around."All this is there in the report. Doctors were called to the platform. Bodies were moved in convoy including this Patel (VHP leader). Right or wrong, VHP is concerned because their supporters were killed. Can there be parading between 12 and 3 am when people are in their homes? 33 out of 58 dead belonged to Ahmedabad so a decision was taken to bring them to Ahmedabad so the transfer to kith and kin is easy," he submitted. .He refuted the claim that the Home Ministry did not respond to Sreekumar's report."A fax was sent to the Home Ministry at 2:30 pm...They started arriving by 11:30 pm...On 1 March, Army was deployed. Army was airlifted from the border. This was a month or two after the Parliament attack," he claimed..The former Attorney General also addressed the claim about mobile phones not being seized. He said that the SIT was instituted in 2009 and it would be unreasonable to expect mobiles from 2002 to still be kept. Further, he argued that if they were hiding something, "Malhotra (ex CBI officer, member of SIT) wouldn't have dared to order investigation against cabinet minister and other police officers." Sitting minister Mayaben Kodnani was arrested and convicted, he pointed out."She was in jail for so many years. If SIT was partisan, then why would they arrest a sitting minister?" he questioned..He further argued that a court had rejected the material of the sting operation, though he maintained that the genuineness of the Tehelka tapes was not under question. Despite that, the SIT examined all concerned including Ashish Khetan, the journalist who conducted the sting operation..He also mentioned that Rahul Sharma is mentioned in the petitioner's reports both as an accused and a witness. Further, he argued that the petitioners are willing to rely on Sreekumar's statement but not his register (the one he had maintained on a personal level to record the series of events)..Rohatgi also argued that the name of the erstwhile Chief Minister Narendra Modi had been mentioned throughout the complaint. Sibal, however, commented that he has not read any part which involves him..It was further argued by Rohatgi that there is no proof that indicates that Dr Yogesh Pandey, Dr Anil and other doctors associated with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) conducted any meeting in Lonavada to conspire against Muslims..SG Mehta claimed that the State government did "everything they could." He posed questions against the credibility of petitioner number 2 Citizens for Justice and Teesta Setalvad, claiming that she embezzled money donated for the welfare of riot victims. He argued that Setalvad was the force behind Zakia Jafri, taking advantage of her plight to push for action."Petitioner no 2 is trying to keep the pot boiling...This in my opinion would be travesty of justice," he stated..In rejoinder, Sibal argued that he had not mentioned the three "star witnesses" - police officers Rahul Sharma, Sreekumar and Sanjiv Bhatt anywhere. He had not even looked into the register maintained by Sreekumar, as it was disputed. "As I stated in the beginning, we are referring to indisputable material before the SIT and the courts. I did that so your lordships don't have to go into statements made by A, B and C because that's not your jurisdiction. That's the jurisdiction of the magistrate. They talk about three star witnesses. When did I mention them? Did Tehelka tapes include them? I did not rely on Sreekumar, I relied on the the official documents corroborated by him," he stated..He refuted the claims of the SIT and the State of Gujarat that Zakia Jafri's complaint was regarding the Gulbarg Society massacre which happened during the 2002 Gujarat riots, and was already decided upon. It was stated that 90% of the complaint has nothing to do with Gulbarg. Further, he argued that the complaint, much like an FIR, is just a piece of information based on which the court had asked the SIT to investigate."A whole argument was made on conspiracy. I was very happy when Justice Khanwilkar read the Gulbarga judgment. The SIT pleaded conspiracy. At that time, this material was not available and couldn't be used but still they pleaded larger conspiracy. How can the SIT that said there's conspiracy now say there's no conspiracy?" Sibal questioned..He also questioned why, if the State government was doing everything in accordance with law, was there a need to stay trial of the nine cases from 2003 to 2009. Further, he argued that the communal violence had begun on February 27, 2002 itself. He added,"I am shocked at the submission that [I claimed that] Hindus or VHP burnt the train. I am only saying if there was a build up[of ammunition], it should be investigated. It is a part of the official material. If there were no riots till 1 pm, how did that State ask for the Army at 2 pm? It is recorded that violence started on 27th itself. I don't know why the SIT won't mention this," he said..Sibal further argued that affidavits by Sreekumar cannot be disbelieved merely because he was superseded in 2004. In fact, the documents he relied upon have always been a part of the record. He contended that the respondents are only bringing up cases against Sreekumar to his prejudice.He asked that the remarks made against Teesta Setalvad be expunged from the record by the Court, stating that she was merely trying to help the riot victims and was protecting the secular image of the nation..Rohatgi submitted in rejoinder,"There were several reports by the Chairman, SIT. Nothing was said then - we want more investigation, this or that. The Court was monitoring it. Highest court of the land. Highest body of officers working under the Supreme Court. Not something light...We did our job, were commended by Justice (Arijit) Pasayat and then Justice (JS) Khehar.".After hearing the parties, the Court called for translation of the documents and reserved its verdict.