Civil Petition
Special Civil Suits
- Imran Mohammad Salim Dawood v. Narendra Modi & others (Special Civil Suit No 39 of 2004)
- Shrin Dawood v. Narendra Modi & others (Special Civil Suit no. 41 of 2004)
- Shameema Dawood v. Narendra Modi & others (Special Civil Suit no. 40 of 2004)
An important step in seeking justice in Gujarat for the crime of genocide are the civil suits filed for compensation at the district court in Himmatnagar, district Sabarkantha, Gujarat. The three suits are filed on behalf of the widows of the two British nationals killed and the lone survivor of the attack.
The incident leading to the attack on the British tourists took place on 28th Feb 2002 at the national highway 8 (NH8) near Prantij. The armed mob attacked their vehicle on the highway after noticing the Arabic inscriptions on the vehicle.
The tourists (including the 3 British nationals) and the driver were chased and brutally attacked. Out of the five persons, including the driver only Imran (one of the plaintiffs) survived. The suit stakes claim for the incident that occurred in Prantij as a part of the statewide genocide in Gujarat.
This civil suit is filed against the Chief Minister of Gujarat, the Home Minister, Chief Secretary, senior police officers for acts purportedly done in their official capacities, resulting in unchecked, widespread-targeted violence against members of the minority community and the victims of the brutal attack in Prantij, Himmatnagar.
The civil suit is filed against Narendra Modi, in his capacity as the Chief Minister and in his personal capacity. The suit alleges that his failure to perform his constitutional duty led to widespread and systematic killings of Muslims /minority community for which he is constitutionally and personally responsible.
It alleges that as a result of the acts of omission and commission on the part of the State authorities, there was a total breaking down of the constitutional machinery in the state, resulting in the violation of the rights of the victims of the attacks, including perpetrating hate speech, offences relating to religion contained in Chapter XV of the Indian Penal Code, violation of fundamental rights of life, liberty and freedom of movement, perpetrating acts of genocide, torture, crimes against humanity, negligence, battery and assault, loss of property as well as mental pain, agony and shock.
The defendants in the suit form a hierarchy of command in Gujarat qua Prantij Police Station in Gujarat, in the jurisdiction of which the tourists/plaintiffs were injured and killed by the defendants and the accused in the criminal case and others unknown.
The suit alleges that India is bound by the law of nations, that is customary international law, which prohibits genocide and crimes against humanity. Such a norm also occupies jus cogens status in international law and has also been reiterated in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948 which has been ratified by India. Though India has not enacted a legislation to give effect to the provisions of the Convention (as required under Article V of the Genocide Convention) and penalise persons guilty of the crime of genocide.
However, precedents set by the Supreme Court of India show that in the absence of a specific statute or law, the Indian judiciary can apply the provisions of a ratified international treaty provided that such a treaty is not contrary to the laws of the land. Our suit states these claims of genocide, the only theoretical framework, which allows individual responsibility of officials and politicians for the acts of murder even though they have not personally committed the murder, on the theory of command responsibility.
The civil suits offer a way of seeking justice and represent one form of authoritative adjudication of legal issues relating to human rights violations.
The monetary reparations arising out of these suits will serve to demonstrate the perpetrator's harm to, and duty to, the victim. The compensation also provides the practical relief the victims of severe human rights violations deserve. This suit is important for democratic and constitutional functioning in India, as it brings attention to past atrocities and provides victims with a forum to present their claims.
The three suits filed on behalf of the victims and their families is the first civil initiative against a Constitutional head in India for crimes against humanity and genocide.
Kanika Kaul