A post-doctoral thesis needs to be written on how the Supreme Court of India has, umpteen times, saved the honour of plural Bharat, in addition to restoring popular confidence, particularly that of the religious minorities, in the rule of law, fair play and justice.
The constructive role of the highest seat of justice comes under sharper focus in cases where the government or its less-than-responsible executives in uniform, decorated with stars, have failed to resist the temptations of baser instincts.
ERROR OF JUDGEMENT
This, however, does not mean that the Apex Court is not liable to err. The errors of judgement do take place. But that is human, especially because the Constitution of India is not Divine but man-made, therefore not free from flaws.
When DIG, DG Vanzara, SP (IB) Raj Kumar Pandian and SP Dinesh Kumar, along with 10 other men-in-uniform decided to take law in their own hands, it had not occurred to them that one day they will have to face justice. The truth is that the Truth has an uncanny knack to unfold itself. Now all the 13 are cooling their heels in prison.
Those who try to keep their superiors in more than good humour for various disquieting reasons, by keeping the cases loose, face censure both from the people and the judiciary which understandably passes choicest strictures against them.
MODI-INSPIRED
The fact is that the Modi-inspired genocide in Gujarat, enacted during the UPA-led dispensation at the Centre, would have, by now, been consigned to the state archives had the Supreme Court not taken sustained interest in baring the truth. And how spineless has been the Congress-led UPA in this regard is too well-known to be commented upon.
The Supreme Court, like a thorough gentleman, put faith into the good sense of police, CID and ATS officers of Gujarat in the investigation of the Sohrabuddin murder case. But the admirers of Narendrabhai Modi disappointed the Court. The harshest-possible comment on this disappointment has come from the Union Law and Justice Minister, Dr. Veerappa Moily: “The territory of Gujarat is not exempted from the enforcement of the rule of law,” he said, and added: “The Gujarat Government was mistaken” in thinking that “in the name of encounter, you can kill anybody. Anyone, however high or low he may be, is bound by the rule of law, including the state government and the Centre.” The Minister was commenting upon the handing over of the Sohrabuddin case to the CBI by the Apex Court on January 12.
THREE MURDERS
Mr Sohrabuddin was killed in a state-managed, also called fake, encounter in November 2005. His wife Kausar Bi was also done to death. So was done with Tulsi Ram Prajapati, the only witness of the crimes committed by the protectors of law.
In a hard-hitting verdict, a two-member bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Mr. Jusitce Tarun Chatterji and Mr. Justice Aftab Alam, came down heavily on the Gujarat Government for, besides other lapses, attempting to “mislead” the Apex Court by filing conflicting Action Taken Reports (ATRs).
To quote from the judgement: “From a careful examination of the materials on record, including the eight ATRs submitted by the state police authorities and considering the respective submissions of the learned senior counsels for the parties, we are of the view that there are large and various discrepancies in such reports and the investigation conducted by the police authorities of the state of Gujarat and also the charge-sheet filed by the state investigation agency, cannot be said to have run in a proper direction.”
KEY-OBSERVATIONS
In the light of the press reportage, the key-observations of the court are:
1. The Chargesheets as well as the ATRs failed to investigate the motive of the killings.
2. IG-CID Miss Geeta Jauhari failed to investigate the case properly to obfuscate the inquiry. The FIR of November 26 is a fabricated one.
3. There are factual discrepancies in the eight ATRs submitted to the Supreme Court.
4. The call records have not been analysed properly, especially the call data relating to three senior police officers.
5. The CID-Crime made a false excuse for not conducting the narco analysis of the accused because a judgement of this Court is pending on the matter, though the Sessions Judge had permitted the test.
6. The eight ATRs filed by CID-Crime don’t make it clear what happened to Kausar Bi, nor is the mode of killing stated, though it admitted that she was seen in the company of the ATS personnel on November 26, 2005 and her body was taken for cremation on November 29, 2005.
7. The charge-sheet identifies the third person with Sohrabuddin and his wife taken to Disha farm – where they were kept before their killing – as Kalimuddin, but has no details of what happened to him. It cannot be ruled out that the third person could be Prajapati who was later killed in an encounter by Gujarat police. Facts surrounding his death evoke strong suspicion.
8. From the chargesheet, it appears that the third person present with Sohrabuddin and Kauasr Bi was “sent somewhere.” It appears that the literal transmission of the chargesheet in Gujarati would mean he was “anyhow made to disappear.”
9. No justification can be found for investigating officer, Ms Jauhri to walk out of the investigation in case of Prajapati’s death without informing the Supreme Court.
LOOPHOLES LEFT
It is quite obvious that the loopholes were left there deliberately so that the accused could go scot-free.
Today Rubabuddin, brother of Sohrabuddin, is elated at the brighter prospect of justice. So, incidentally are the relatives of Sadique Jamal of Bhavnagar. He was liquidated in a fake encounter in 2003. Sameer Khan was also killed in 2002 in an inexplicable encounter. Ishrat Jahan was eliminated in 2004 and scores of others in various states were evaporated into thin air as we see in the case of Batla House encounter in Jamia Nagar of Delhi.
