Author: Editorial
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: April 14, 2004
The Supreme Court has ordered retrial
of the Best Bakery case, and its transfer to Maharashtra from Gujarat.
This will predictably provide grist to the overactive mill of demonisation
Chief Minister Narendra Modi has long faced. But it is not his gratuitous
branding as modern-day "Nero" that makes the judgement unfortunate. The
more disturbing aspect is that the order is a vote of no-confidence against
Gujarat's entire judicial machinery.
Ironically, the High Court, dismissing
the Modi Government's prayer for retrial, had voiced "concern" over "a
definite design" to target "the system as a whole". It could hardly have
conceived of a gravely anomalous situation in which it would have its own
integrity doubted by the nation's highest court of appeal. The SC has not
passed an insignificant stricture against a lower court.
The Gujarat High Court itself stands
demeaned-for no other reason than having discharged its duty in a manner
prioritising national interest, based on its view that Best Bakery hinged
on a self-confessed perjurer who could well be a tool in the hands of stakeholders
in social unrest. It may be asked if the SC wishes to imply that Gujarat's
judges are so spineless and susceptible to 'political pressure' that they
can deliver judgements tailormade for supposedly venal politicians.
In the popular perception, certainly,
its order represents the judiciary's indictment of itself, one to be set
right only by assuming guilt-in advance. For, the apex court has unambiguously
suggested that an official conspiracy was afoot to 'protect' the killers
of innocent women and children.
It would follow that no verdict
but of 'guilty' could lay Best Bakery to rest, that the charge of institutional
collusion needs no further verification and that culpability may be established
without concrete, and credible, evidence-all because a key prosecution
witness changed her story at will, that too only after the Vadodara court
gave its verdict. With its Gujarat counterpart painted as incapable of
dispensing justice, the Maharashtra judiciary seems to have been issued
a virtual directive on how to deal with Best Bakery.
Under the Constitution, law and
order is a State subject. Inquiry has to be conducted by State authorities
and cases represented by government prosecutors. Since perjurers allege
the Gujarat authorities obstructed justice, surely there is little to guarantee
the latter's future model conduct. The Vadodara court had acquitted the
accused only after Zaheera Sheikh's retraction.
Given lack of evidence, it could
hardly have done otherwise. After perjury was admitted, the High Court
ruled out retrial. Yet the SC has put the Modi regime in the dock, using
the harshest language possible to express contempt for a democratically
elected Government. That this very regime appealed the Vadodara verdict
and sought retrial does not seem pertinent; its view justice could be done
within Gujarat even less so.
All of this can only bolster Mr
Modi's contention that a relentless vilification campaign has been waged
against Gujarat and its people. Given the media circus over Best Bakery
and its uses for publicity-hounding human rights champions, his charge
has always had takers. That the SC should also appear partisan, or swayed
by people carrying out a virtual out-of-court trial, can only be rued as
a sad day for the judiciary. Innumerable cases of justice miscarried or
denied have gone unmourned. Anti-Sikh riot survivors may ask why their
call for retribution has not been heard.
During the Punjab crisis, no TADA
case was transferred. No one spoke of the human rights of terrorised victims.
They too could demand fair trial, asking why they have never prompted the
kind of concerted activism always at hand when judicial resolution of social
conflict is given a communal colour. The judiciary and society at large
need to think of answers, so that dispensation of justice can be authenticated
as more than an institutional pretension.