Author:
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: September 13, 2011
URL: http://www.dailypioneer.com/pioneer-news/edit/5879-sc-upholds-the-law.html
Narendra Modi stands vindicated
Monday's verdict of the Supreme Court, refusing
to entertain a petition filed by a victim of the 2002 violence in part of
Gujarat following the gruesome killing of kar sevaks travelling by Sabarmati
Express whose coach was set on fire by a Muslim mob at Godhra, not only strengthens
faith in the judiciary but also, and perhaps more importantly, reaffirms the
majesty of the law of the land. It is only to be expected that a victim of
violence, whatever its nature or cause, should feel aggrieved and angry. In
this case, the petition filed by Jakia Nasim Ahsan referred to the death of
then Congress MP Ehsaan Jafri who was killed in the violence at Gulbarg Society
on February 28, 2002. It was an unfortunate incident that should not have
happened and the process of bringing the guilty to book was initiated in the
relevant trial court. Yet, goaded by self-righteous and sanctimonious activists
with a political agenda and not averse to subverting the process of justice,
the apex court was needlessly sought to be drawn into the trial by alleging
that Chief Minister Narendra Modi and several senior bureaucrats were 'responsible'
for Ehsaan Jafri's death and hence should be tried for the crime. The allegation,
outlandish to say the least, was posited as 'fact' regardless of the absurdity
of the proposition. We have seen similar foisting of fiction as fact in the
past by, and at the bidding of, the same lot of activists who have since been
exposed for perjury and worse. After the Supreme Court refusing to entertain
the petition or supervise the case on the basis of two independent reports
- the first by the court-appointed Special Investigation Team and the second
by the amicus curiae; the credentials of those who looked into the allegation,
sifted through evidence and scrutinised records before penning the reports
are unimpeachable. No motive can be attributed to them. Nor can the Supreme
Court be faulted for doing the right thing by ruling that the issue lies with
the trial court and there is no reason for either intervention or supervision.
The law has been upheld and a precedent set.
It is for jurists and scholars of law to pontificate
on the finer points of Monday's judgement. However, it would be in order to
make three points on the basis of the judgement delivered by the Special Bench
of Justice DK Jain, Justice P Sathasivam and Justice Aftab Alam. First, much
as activists and their politician patrons may perversely claim that the justice
process in our country is flawed or slyly insinuate bias by demanding that
cases be transferred out of the State where incidents have occurred (in this
instance, it is Gujarat) the reality is to the contrary. Second, perhaps a
larger and more substantive debate is called for on whether self-proclaimed
'human rights' activists with dubious sources of funds and sinister intentions
should be allowed to delay fair trial with the purpose of derailing justice.
The trial of those accused of setting coach S6 of Sabarmati Express on fire
was inordinately delayed on account of such intervention. Third, there should
be a system of penalising agents provocateurs who seek to promote themselves
and their twisted interests by trying to manipulate the process of justice
through false affidavits, bribing of witnesses and tutoring complainants.
Or else the rule of law stands threatened.
