Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Confronted with stark evidence of ‘‘misleading’’ the Supreme Court on the status of the accused in key riot cases and questionable High Court orders, the Gujarat Government today wriggled out through an embarrassing admission.
‘‘Whatever is said in the court,’’ its counsel Mukul Rohatgi told the bench headed by Chief Justice V N Khare today, ‘‘will be reported by the press and that will have a fallout on the elections.’’
Rohatgi’s plea to defer the hearing until after polls on April 20 was accepted by the court but not before amicus curiae Harish Salve read out evidence to bolster his application seeking the transfer of the key cases out of the state.
Consider these:
• To show that the accused were being prosecuted with diligence, the Modi Government claimed to Salve in writing that ‘‘almost all the bail applications were rejected.’’ But from the material they sent him, Salve came up with findings just the opposite.
• The bail applications were, in fact, rejected only in the sessions courts. The accused in all those cases, Salve found, have since been either released on bail or altogether acquitted by the Gujarat High Court.
• Salve alleged that the Gujarat Government had a strong reason for ‘‘misleading’’ the apex court and ‘‘withholding’’ the high court bail orders. For, there is a ‘‘startling pattern’’ to most of them, said Salve adding: ‘‘The public’s faith in the judiciary needs to be restored.’’
• Even though the cases involve murder charges, the prosecution did not contest bail applications in the High Court and instead agreed to the accused being released by the judge without giving any reason.
• Incredibly, for all the variance in the cases and accused, different judges of the High Court on different dates passed almost identical bail orders. The orders run into over 40 lines and yet, barring the names of persons and places, they contain the same language to the last word.
Take, for instance, one case from Gulbarga Society and another from Naroda Patiya, both of which are counted among the worst incidents of the Gujarat riots.
In the Gulbarga Society case, Justice Akshay Mehta of the Gujarat High Court granted bail to 13 murder accused on October 29, 2002 saying at the outset: ‘‘The parties do not press for reasoned order.’’
Without giving a hint of the prosecution’s stand, Justice Mehta went on to say: ‘‘Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed and applicants are ordered to be released on bail …’’
In the Naroda Patiya case, Justice Sharad Dave too granted bail to one murder accused on September 11, 2002 without a word of explanation. Reason: ‘‘The parties do not press for reasoned order.’’ And, again without disclosing a word of what the prosecution said, Justice Dave ruled: ‘‘Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties, and having regard to the circumstances and facts of the case, the application is allowed and he is ordered to be released on bail …’’
The most noticeable difference between the two orders is, while Justice Mehta referred to ‘‘the facts and circumstances of the case,’’ Justice Dave put it as ‘‘the circumstances and facts of the case.’’
When Salve read out several such bail orders in the apex court displaying the same language spread over 40 lines, the Gujarat Government counsel sought to explain it away as ‘‘the style of the Gujarat High Court.’’
Rohtagi said that he would not be able to respond to Salve’s allegations till April 20 because officials are busy on election duty.
The court accordingly posted the next hearing for April 21.
Earlier, Ram Jethmalani, representing an NGO, objected to Rohtagi’s postponement plea on the ground that the electorate needed to know before the election how the Modi Government has been ‘‘burying’’ riot cases.
