The recently-leaked 600-page report of the special investigation team (SIT) probing the 2002 Gujarat riots has reportedly pronounced chief minister Narendra Modi guilty of complicity in the heinous killings. The SIT has, however, admitted that its findings cannot be investigated further under the law due to lack of evidence. In other words, the SIT has pronounced Modi guilty without evidence to back its claim.

This is not the first time such a thing has happened. The central bureau of investigation (CBI) recently pointed fingers at the father in the Arushi Talwar murder case without any evidence to support its conclusion. Judicial inquiries have done much the same thing several times, including in the case of 1984 anti-Sikh riots. Agencies are often under pressure to come up with conclusions, or even frame charges, without supporting evidence at their disposal.

However, the question arises whether is proper to damn and indict anybody without evidence. After all, it is one thing for a political party to air suspicions and level charges but quite another for an investigating agency or a judicial inquiry to adopt similar tactics.