Opinion Court rescues due process in Akhlaq case

In 2015, the horror of the lynching of Mohammad Akhlaq, allegedly by a mob that included his neighbours, on suspicion of killing a calf and storing beef, echoed far beyond his village, Bisada. In its aftermath, “cow vigilantism” and “gau rakshaks” became a disquietingly familiar part of the public vocabulary. Disturbing, too, has been the fact that several politicians and social leaders associated with the ruling party or its ideological parivar either equivocate on the attacks on minorities, or turn a blind eye to them. And, in a shocking inversion of justice, as in the Akhlaq case, the families of many of those assaulted or killed became the subject of investigations for smuggling cattle or eating and transporting beef. Justice was important in the Akhlaq case, therefore, not just for a measure of closure for the victim’s family, but also for social healing.

At one level, the Uttar Pradesh government’s plea to withdraw its prosecution in the case last month was an admission of failure. In fact, it showed an unwillingness to uphold the rule of law and bring the perpetrators to justice. In this context, it is welcome and reassuring that the judiciary has emphasised the inviolability of due process. On Tuesday, a local court in Surajpur denied the application to withdraw prosecution, instructed that a “letter be sent to Police Commissioner of Gautam Buddha Nagar and Deputy Commissioner of Greater Noida to ensure that… protection be provided to the evidences” and categorised the case as “most important”, with hearings to be held daily.

Advertisement

The justice system is adversarial by design. The prosecution and defence are each meant to stand up for their clients. The former as an advocate for the government and broader community, and the latter to ensure that every accused is convicted only after there is enough evidence to do so. By all accounts, in the Akhlaq case, this fundamental principle of the justice process has been upended by the prosecution. As this newspaper reported, the prosecution cited the same grounds — inconsistency in witness statements — to withdraw its case against the accused that their defence lawyers had used while seeking bail in 2017. At that time, the government had taken an opposing position. Now, with the court having rejected its petition, the UP government must remind itself that its responsibility is to investigate and prosecute the murder of Akhlaq according to the law, not to defend the crime. State sanction for a culture of vigilantism and impunity has no place in a constitutional democracy.