Ramachandran has held Modi responsible for promoting enmity between communities by justifying the violence. He has observed that Modi’s gesture was not only prejudicial to maintenance of harmony, but also a threat to national integration under sections 153 and 505 of IPC. Punishment under these sections is three years in jail. Ramachandran has concluded that Modi be prosecuted for disobeying law though he is a public servant. He has stated that the questions whether Modi held a meeting at his residence on the evening of February 27, 2002, and if he had directed police officials to be lenient on the Hindu mobs was a matter still open to probe.
While the SIT has debunked the claim of IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt that he was present at the meeting, Ramachandran has said it was Bhatt’s word against other officers’ and that this too needs to be looked into by the courts. He said there was no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Bhatt in a situation when there is no evidence to prove him false.
On the issue of the presence of two ministers — I K Jadeja and late Ashok Bhatt in police control rooms in Gandhinagar and Ahmedabad — the amicus curiae highlighted SIT chairman R K Raghavan’s comment that the ministers’ presence in control rooms must have had Modi’s “tacit approval”.
Ramachandran has not accepted SIT’sconclusion that Modi’s speech delivered on March 1, 2002 treating the riots as reaction to Godhra carnage was not problematic. “It clearly indicates that there was an attempt to justify the violence against the minority community. This indicates a certain approach. The statement made by Modi cannot be seen in isolation,” he said.
Against the SIT’s recommendations for departmental proceedings against two IPS officers, M K Tandon and P B Gondia, who visited the massacre site but turned away amid mounting tension, Ramachandran said they should be tried for causing death by negligence under section 304A of IPC.