Author: Devendra Swarup
Publication: Organiser
Date: May 16, 2004
A two-member Bench of Supreme Court
delivered an important ver-dict on April 12 in the widely publicised Best
Bakery case of Vadodara (Gujarat). The 69-page verdict delivered by Justice
Doraiswamy Raju and Justice Arijit Pasayat was written and read out by
the latter. On January 13, the Supreme Court had accepted a petition filed
by Zahira Sheikh, a member of the Best Bakery family, in which she had
challenged the verdict of Justice B.J. Sethan and J.R.Vora of Gujarat High
Court, given on December 26, 2003, upholding the decision of the Vadodara´s
lower court on June 27, 2003, regarding the release of the 21 accused in
the Best Bakery episode. In her petition, Zahira Sheikh pleaded that it
was not possible to get justice in Gujarat where an environment of fear
prevailed and hence, the proceedings of the case be held somewhere out
of Gujarat.
It may be recalled that in the lower
court, Zahira Sheikh, the key witness, and other witnesses had refused
to recognise the accused. Hence the court, due to lack of evidence, ordered
the release of the 21 persons held accused. But on July 7, Zahira Sheikh,
on being incited by a leftist worker, Teesta Setalvad of Mumbai, knocked
on the doors of the High Court and said that she had changed her statement
under pressure. The Gujarat High Court, in its decision of December 26,
had raised serious questions and had severely criticised the role of Teesta
Setalvad. Hence, Teesta too approached the Supreme Court with an appeal
to get her criticism expunged from the High Court decision. The Supreme
Court accepted her appeal for consideration.
Decision becomes a weapon
The Supreme Court accepted these
petitions on January 13 and completed the hearings on March 24, before
delivering its verdict on April 12. Those people, who complain about the
lakhs of cases pending with the Supreme Court and the delay in justice,
should rejoice at the speed with which the apex court delivered its decision.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the hearing in the Best Bakery case should
be held afresh, and that too in the neighbouring state of Maharashtra,
and not in Gujarat. At the same time, the Bench also admonished the Gujarat
High Court for commen-ting on Teesta Setalvad. The apex court also directed
the High Court to stay away from religious feelings and expunge the comments
on Teesta from the Court´s decision of December 26.
Naturally, this decision of the
Supreme Court has become a potent weapon in the hands of the Opposition
parties against the ruling BJP in Gujarat and also the NDA government at
the Centre in the ongoing General Elections. And on the basis of this judgement,
the Opposition parties have started clamouring for the resignation of Gujarat
Chief Minister, Narendra Modi. The question that arises is why did Justice
Pasayat decide to deliver the verdict on April 12 itself? He must be aware
that polling to the 26 Lok Sabha seats of Gujarat was scheduled to be held
on April 20 and announcing the decision just a week prior to the elections
would amount to getting entangled in electoral politics. Eight more petitions
related to the Gujarat riots are pending before the Supreme Court and over
which Chief Justice V.N. Khare has yet to give his views. (Chief Justice
Khare has retired since then.) But when Gujarat´s Attorney General,
Mukul Rohatgi requested the then Chief Justice Shri Khare to postpone his
decision till the polling got over in Gujarat, the latter willingly accepted
the request and postponed the verdict till April 20. Couldn´t the
two Justices have emulated the step taken by the then Chief Justice and
waited for eight more days before making the decision public?
Did it not occur to Justice Pasayat
that the Gujarat riots of 2002 have not only a humanitarian but a political
aspect too? It is clear like the sun that if Muslims had not committed
the gruesome act of killing 59 innocent women, children and the old at
Godhra on February 27, 2002, out of religious intolerance, then whatever
happened as a reaction would never have occurred. Whatever took place was
unfortunate and highly condem-nable. Any civilised society would have been
embarrassed in its heart of hearts at such retaliatory frenzy in time of
peace. But what justice is this to turn a blind eye to an incident that
fans the fire of frenzy and centres all its attention on the undesirable
reaction only? Why don´t Teesta Seetalvad, Father Cedric Prakash,
Shabnam Hashmi and supporters of human rights raise the question of the
perpetrators of the Godhra crime?
Why is no campaign launched to bring
them to the witness stand of justice? Why don´t they express sympathy
for the hundreds of Hindus killed in Gujarat riots? Why do they portray
the one-sided picture of the attack of the Hindus over the Muslims and
as killers in the Gujarat riots? When in reality the culprits are those
who through their atrocities pushed a peace loving and sympathetic society
to adopt a cruel posture.
Who stands to benefit?
All know the political leanings
of Teesta Setalvad, Shabnam Hashmi and the others of their ilk. Their friends
and enemies are known the world over. Their sole political objective is
to spread revulsion and jealousy among the Muslims against the Hindus.
The Gujarat government has tried its best to heal the wounds inflicted
in 2002 and had even won over the confidence of the Muslim society.
In large numbers the Muslims are
embracing the members of the Hindu society. This environment of tolerance
and unity is unacceptable to these missionaries of hatred. That is why
people like Teesta and Shabnam are forever taking rounds of Gujarat to
sow the seeds of envy and fan the fires of communal violence. In reality
the criticism of Teesta by Gujarat High Court should have been viewed from
this angle. Is it not necessary to reveal the perpetrators of hatred and
violence so that communal harmony, peace and unity can be brought into
Gujarat?
Even if Teesta had not been physically
present in the Gujarat High Court and has been manipulating the strings
from behind the curtain, but how should we view the physical presence of
Congress leader Kapil Sibal as an advocate for Zahira Sheikh in the Supreme
Court in Delhi? Kapil Sibal is a professional lawyer and his fee for a
single appearance is Rs 50,000. Is it possible that Zahira Sheikh could
have afforded to pay this high fee to him? But, nowadays, Kapil Sibal is
seen as a spokesman of the Congress rather than as a lawyer. What is more,
he is now contesting Lok Sabha elections as Congress candidate from Chandni
Chowk. Certainly, the reason of advocating for Zahira Sheikh must have
been some personal gain, apart from the party. The fate of a candidate
depends upon the large number of Muslim voters in Chandni Chowk. By advocating
for Zahira Sheikh, he has certainly tried to woo the Muslim voters. The
Supreme Court Bench by announcing its decision on April 12 in favour of
Zahira may have unwittingly strengthened Kapil Sibal´s candidature,
as within two days of the court decision, he was declared the Congress
nominee from Chandni Chowk. Now he will certainly exploit this decision
in the Muslim-dominated constituency.
What is extremely painful is that
one does not get even a whiff of objectivity from the verdict of Justice
Pasayat. The judgment said that when innocent children and helpless women
were being burned inside the Best Bakery, today´s Nero was looking
elsewhere, perhaps deliberately. It sounds more like political language
than legal. Its aim is clear. The media has aptly replaced the Roman Emperor
Nero´s name with that of Gujarat Chief Minister, Narendra Modi. But
Narendra Modi is unable to reply to this attack as the author of this verdict
is wearing the protective armour of ´ contempt of court´.
Even the support of Mahatma Gandhi´s
name has been taken in the verdict. "On Mahatma Gandhi´s land, vicious
killings were taking place because of which a pertinent question raises
its head-whether some people had become so bankrupt with their ideology
that they turned away from all those things which he stood for?´´
Use of Mahatma Gandhi´s name
and views certainly makes it emotional but does not seem in accordance
with history. Perhaps, the respected judges ignored the fact that Gujarat
has a long history of communal violence. During Gandhi´s life itself
Gujarat had burnt in such violence. His pain at the 1924 riots of Ahmedabad
is visible in his complete works; since Independence sparks of violence
have been spreading in the Muslim-dominated areas of Godhra and Ahmedabad;
Mohammad Ghaznavi was extended invitation to again prevent the reconstruction
of Somnath temple which caused unbearable pain to Gandhi. Gujarat has had
a long history of riots during the Congress regime that called itself the
sole inheritor of Gandhi´s legacy even after his death. In 1969,
during Gandhian Hitendra Desai´s rule as Chief Minister, Ahmedabad
witnessed communal frenzy, in which more than 3,000 people were killed,
i.e. much more than those killed in the riots of 2002. Hence instead of
getting caught in the quagmire of ideology, it is necessary to probe into
the causes of this endless chain of communal riots in the state.
How is Maharashtra better?
The Supreme Court by entertaining
Zahira Sheikh´s appeal has given the decision to hold the proceedings
on the Best Bakery case in Maharashtra. The Gujarat government, respecting
the honour of the apex court, has very humbly accepted the order. But this
order raises certain questions in the minds of the common man. It seems
from the order that the Supreme Court has lost faith in the Gujarat High
Court and in the unbiased and firm handling of the situation by the police.
Probably, the Court thinks that they all are working under pressure from
the BJP government of Gujarat. Can it then be said with conviction that
the High Court of Maharashtra and the state police are not working under
pressure from the Congress government of the state? Won´t the Congress
government on this occasion embarrass its Opposition, the BJP party? The
Maharashtra police and judiciary have not so far been able to convict the
guilty in the dangerous bomb explosions of 1993. The accused who planned
to kill the Deputy Prime Minister, L.K. Advani in August 2003 were let
off by a session court of the Maharashtra due to laxity of the police.
The Telgi scam has unveiled the corrupt face of the Maharashtra police,
administration and the ruling party. The accused in Ghatkopar bomb conspiracy
have not yet been caught. Why does the Supreme Court presume that justice
will not be meted out within the state that it is necessary to go to another
state for seeking justice? A few months ago, the Supreme Court had ordered
that proceedings in the cases against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, Jayalalitha
should be held in the Congress- ruled Karnataka state. Both these decisions
raise a serious question mark on the impartial and correct judgement of
the judiciary. Faith in the judiciary depends upon the person sitting in
the chair of the judge.
Public faith should not be shaken
Man is an integral part of the society.
Today, the society is facing the serious issue of not finding men of upright
character, and this is reflected in every sphere. The person holding the
post of a judge also comes from the same society and represents the character
of the entire Indian society. It would not be proper to say that the judges
of a state are different from those of the other states. If the impartiality
and credibility of a judge sitting in the Supreme Court can be questioned,
then people can be audacious enough to point their accusing finger at the
Supreme Court one day. After all, the judges in the Supreme Court too reach
this high post through the High Courts. Recently, Ram Jethmalani had levelled
serious charges of corruption and misuse of authority against A.S. Anand,
the retired Chief Justice of Supreme Court. The same A.S. Anand is now
holding the post of Chairman of the Human Rights Commission. During the
Emergency of 1975-77, the role of Supreme Court had become an issue of
controversy. If public faith in the impartiality and credibility of the
judiciary is lost, then even God will not be able to save the Indian democracy.
The responsibility of maintaining this credibility has now fallen upon
the Supreme Court.
But it seems that the judges, in
order to maintain the dignity of their post, prefer to remain away from
the people and are dependent on the media for information about the country
and the world. Thus, they must be getting influenced by the media too.
But, today the Indian media, instead of being the mirror for the society,
echoes the voice of a handful of Leftists and anti-Hindu forces. This fact
was very clearly presented by lawyer K.T.S. Tulsi, who is representing
the 21 accused in the Best Bakery case when the latter came up for hearing
to the Supreme Court Bench. He had said that more than the judiciary it
was the media that was directing the proceedings. That the media is not
a true mirror of public opinion was proved by the electoral results in
Gujarat Assembly. Instead of playing an objective role, the media has itself
become a party to biased views. It should be no surprise if the judiciary
fails to delve deep into the exact truth if it continues to remain dependent
on such partial media. Some decisions of the Supreme Court on Ayodhya controversy
and disinvestment policy of the Government of India are proof of its limitations
in its decision-making ability. How the Supreme Court should rise above
these limitations is a prime cause of concern for the country.
