In a jolt to chief minister Narendra Modi, a Supreme Court-appointed amicus curiae has held that he can be prosecuted under various sections of the IPC for "promoting enmity among different groups" during the 2002 Gujarat riots.

The report by Raju Ramchandran on the complaint of Zakia Jaffrey is in sharp contrast to the report of the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) which had earlier given a clean chit to Modi and others.

"In my opinion, the offences which can be made out against Shri Modi, at this prima facie stage, are offences inter alia under Sections 153 A (1) (a) & (b) of IPC which means promoting enmity among different groups on grounds of religion and 153 B (1) which says assertions prejudicial to national integration," Ramchandran said in his report.

"He (Modi) should also be prosecuted under IPC 166 which says?public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person and 505 (2) meaning statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will," the amicus curiae said in the report.

The SIT in its report had rejected suspended IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt's allegations that Modi had given instructions in a meeting held on Feb 27, 2002 to "allow Hindus to vent their ire and teach Muslims a lesson" in the wake of the Godhra train burning incident.

Bhatt had filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court in this regard.

Regarding Bhatt, the amicus curiae (adviser to court) said that "in my opinion, despite the aforesaid background (SIT rejecting Bhatt's claims), it does not appear very likely that a serving police officer would make such a serious allegation against Shri Modi, the chief minister of the State, without some basis".

The complainant Jaffrey was today handed over the SIT report, along the with report of the Amicus Curiae, by the SIT in the court of the metropolitan magistrate.

Jaffrey's husband and former Congress MP Ehsan Jaffrey was among the 69 people killed at the Gulberg Society during 2002 post-Godhra riots.

"There is no documentary material of any nature whatsoever which can establish that Shri Bhatt was not present at the meeting on 27.02.2002. In the absence of the minutes of the meeting, there is again no documentary material available as to the participants in the meeting and what transpired at the said meeting.

"Therefore, it is the word of Shri Bhatt against the word of other officers, senior to him. The SIT has chosen to believe the word of the senior officers", Ramchandran said in his report.

As a result, he said it was difficult to accept the conclusion of the SIT that Bhatt's statement is motivated, because he has an axe to grind with the State on the issues of his career.

"Though the SIT, as the investigating agency, has taken a view, the question whether Shri Bhatt was present at the meeting on 27.02.2002 and whether Shri Modi had indeed made such a statement (as spoken to by Shri Bhatt) can only be decided by a court of law. It would not be correct to disbelieve the version of Shri Bhatt, at this prima facie stage", Ramchandran further said.

"Hence, the question to be examined is whether the making of the statement by the chief minister in the meeting on 27.02.2002, by itself, is an offence under law," the amicus curiae said in his report which was submitted to the Supreme Court on July 25, 2011.