Nanavati played safe, enough to prosecute: legal experts

The UPA Government’s claim that mere ‘‘probability’’ reflected in the Nanavati report doesn’t warrant any acti...

The UPA Government’s claim that mere ‘‘probability’’ reflected in the Nanavati report doesn’t warrant any action against Union Minister Jagdish Tytler, among others, is contested by several leading jurists.

While many of them argue that if probability is backed by credible evidence—something which the Nanavati report spells out—then there is sufficient cause for action.

However, there are some, including eminent jurist Fali Nariman who say that the Nanavati panel should have come up with something more ‘‘definite’’ rather than such a ‘‘vacillating opinion.’’ n Ex-Supreme Court judge Justice V R Krishna Iyer: ‘‘It depends on the degree of probability. If it is a mere possibility, then a criminal case may not lie. But if it’s high probability, then the matter needs to be looked into more closely as it would then be very proximate to a criminal prosecution.”

Story continues below this ad

• Ex-Chief Justice of India Justice P N Bhagwati: ‘‘What the Commission meant is that available evidence points to their involvement, but needs to be probed further to establish guilt or innocence. It is enough to launch a prosecution. Prosecutions are always initiated on probability.”

• Ex-Chief Justice of India Justice G B Patnaik: “If the probability is backed by credible material, then the government should go ahead and investigate the matter…If the Commission did have ample material, I don’t know why it acted shy. It could straightaway have recommended steps to be taken against those allegedly involved instead of leaving it to the government.”

• Senior Counsel P P Rao: “Probability indicates that it is most likely that they may be involved. But that is not a definite finding. So it’s entirely up to the government to do as it desires. Neither does the report bar nor compel them to investigate further.’’

• Senior SC counsel Fali S Nariman: “Of course, the government is right. The Commission should not have given this kind of vacillating opinion. Its job was to find facts. In fact, it was because the previous commission could not get at the facts that this commission was appointed. Its finding should have been more definite.”

Story continues below this ad

• Former CJI Justice V N Khare: “Under our legal system, the benefit of doubt always goes to the accused. Sajjan Kumar was already prosecuted for the same charges and let off by a criminal court. Law does not allow a person to be prosecuted more than once. So unless and until some new material was brought on record, nothing could be done.”

Ananthakrishnan G

Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More