SCREWS TIGHTEN

Repeatedly taunting the Modi Government with the query, ‘‘What is your Raj Dharma?’’, Justice Khare said: ‘‘I have no faith left in the prosecution and the state Government. I’m not saying Article 356 (should be imposed). You have to protect the people and punish the guilty. What else is Raj Dharma? You quit if you cannot prosecute the guilty.’’

Hearing the petitions filed by the National Human Rights Commission in the wake of the collapse of the Best Bakery case, the Supreme Court indicated that it favoured the idea proposed by the NHRC of entrusting the matter to the CBI for a fresh investigation and retrial.

In a tacit reference to the revelations made by Zaheera Sheikh and her mother about the threats they received—first reported in The Indian Express—the apex court took umbrage to the fact that even when 37 out of 43 witnesses turned hostile, the prosecution made no attempt to put on record why they were changing their statements.

Alleging a ‘‘collusion’’ between the Modi Government and the accused, the bench said ‘‘there is no cross examination as to why witnesses turned hostile and this shows the nature of the prosecution.’’

The NHRC’s counsel, P P Rao and T R Andhyarujina, pointed out several infirmities in the appeal filed by the state in the high court two days before the Supreme Court was due to take up the NHRC’s petitions on August 8.

They asserted that the state’s appeal was unlikely to reverse the acquittals because it did not ask for a retrial, which alone could have plugged the holes in the evidence recorded in the first instance.

Agreeing with the NHRC’s critique of the Gujarat Government’s appeal, the Supreme Court asked: ‘‘Is this an appeal? Even a counsel with one-year experience will not draft such an appeal.’’

This prompted the state’s counsel, additional solicitor general Mukul Rohatgi, to say that whatever the limitations of the appeal the prosecution could still raise all the relevant issues when it addresses its arguments in the high court.

When that failed to convince the bench of the state’s intentions, Rohatgi changed tack and requested the bench repeatedly to adjourn the matter so that the state could amends its appeal in the high court to the satisfaction of the Supreme Court.

A sceptical Chief Justice said, ‘‘The way you have conducted the prosecution before the trial court and the way you have filed the appeal, it appears to us that the same thing will be repeated before the high court.’’

Though Rohatgi gave an undertaking that the appeal would be amended to make it stronger, he remained ambiguous on whether the state was prepared to go to the extent of pleading before the high court for a retrial so that witnesses like Zaheera would get another opportunity to depose in the case.

The Centre today filed a counter-affidavit on the reforms it is making to the criminal justice system on the basis of the Malimath Committee’s recommendations.

The Centre was represented by Solicitor General Kirit Raval, even though Justice Khare said at the beginning of the hearing today that he wanted Attorney General Soli Sorabjee, the number one law officer, to participate in the proceedings. Khare even sent word for Sorabjee through the court master but there was no sign of him till the end of the 15-minute hearing.