Former CBI Director Says He Was Targeted By PM Modi's Rivals For Giving Him A Clean Chit In 2002 Riot Case

Former CBI Director Says He Was Targeted By PM Modi's Rivals For Giving Him A Clean Chit In 2002 Riot CasePrime Minister Narendra Modi (Representative Image) (@narendramodi/Twitter)

Former CBI Director RK Raghavan who had led the SIT probe under the supervision of the Supreme Court to investigate ex-Gujarat CM Narendra Modi’s role in the 2002 Godhra riots has claimed that he was targeted after he gave a clean chit to Modi, Times of India has reported.

In his autobiography ‘A Road Well Travelled’, Raghavan reveals that he was harassed by the Prime Minister’s rivals for giving him a clean chit after the probe. The SIT had concluded that there was no evidence to prove Modi’s complicity in the riots.

“They engineered petitions against me, accusing me of favouring the CM. The grapevine had it that they misused central agencies to monitor my telephonic conversations. They were disappointed not to find anything incriminating”, Raghavan wrote.

The ex-IPS officer also remembered Modi’s nine-hour long interrogation at the SIT office in Gandhinagar. Raghavan adds that the Prime Minister maintained his composure throughout the probe and didn’t deflect any question.

“At one point of time, we had to question Modi on the allegations made against the state administration. We had it conveyed to his staff that he had to come in person to the SIT office for this purpose, and that meeting him elsewhere would be misconstrued as a favour. He agreed to come to the SIT office within the government complex in Gandhinagar,” he wrote.

Modi didn’t even accept tea from the officials as SIT member Ashok Malhotra grilled him until late at night. Raghavan added that it required tremendous persuasion to make him agree for a short recess.

“Modi’s questioning lasted nine hours. Malhotra told me that Modi kept his cool right through the session which ended late at night. He never parried questions,” he conveyed.

Raghavan suspected that central agencies were instructed to monitor his telephonic conversations. However, nothing incriminating could be found against him.