Author:
Publication: Blog.offstumped.in
Date: October 23, 2011
URL: http://blog.offstumped.in/2011/10/23/amicus-curiae-giri/
[Note from the Hindu Vivek Kendra: Please
see our comments after the article.]
When it comes to anything legal about Narendra
Modi, Delhi's Legal system it would seem leaks like a sieve. So we have a
choice of leaks on the Amicus Curiae report across media outlets from The
Hindu to the Times of India. The difference in emphasis between The Hindu
and The TOI was stark though. While The Hindu tried to overplay a recommendation
on a possible chargesheet against Narendra Modi, the TOI tempered its leak
with a focus on a recommendation to press charges against specific Gujarat
Police Officers.
The pre-emptive leak of the Amicus Curiae
report is yet another instance of an oft repeated pattern followed by the
anti-Narendra-Modi NGO activists. The leaks are meant to prejudice an already
polarized public opinion irrespective of legal merit or Judicial consequence.
It is significant that atleast the Times of India made it a point in its leak
to rightly highlight the following
#1 the Amicus Curiae report here is not an
independent investigation
#2 the Amicus Curiae has uncovered no new
facts
#3 the Amicus Curiae has merely expressed
an opinion that dissents with the professional opinion of a Supreme Court
Appointed Investigation Team
To begin with the Supreme Court has gravely
erred by injecting an element of doubt into the professional opinion of a
professional investigation/prosecution team by calling for an Amicus Curiae
review in the first place. This sets a dangerous precedent where every investigation
will second guessed and every instance of prosecutorial discretion will be
questioned on its legitimacy and credibility.
The Amicus Curiae opinion expressed in this
report is nothing more than a dissenting opinion that is about as weighty
as the millions of letters to the editor, tweets and blogs that routinely
express opinions of dissent. It cannot and should not be the basis for reversing
the professional decisions of the SIT in the absence of substantiative new
facts or evidence.
One sincerely hopes the SIT uses its judgement
and discretion in putting the Amicus Curiae opinion in perspective leaving
no room for 2002 riot victims to entertain any further lingering doubts on
whether justice has been done to them. One also sincerely hopes the Magisterial
Court empowered to take notice of this report, deals with it in a manner it
deserves.
------------------------------------
COMMENT
Does the action of the Amicus Curiae not indicate
that clearly there are political games being played? And do the people indulging
in these games really care what happens in the society, so long as their agenda
is served?
More than one detailed investigations of the
post-Godhra riots has not found any evidence of deriliction of duties by the
state government (political as well as administrative) in general. After each
such investigation the Supreme Court got another body to make yet another
investigation. Finally, it asked an individual to try and see if he
could come out with a verdict that was based on its thinking rather than facts.
It found such a person. (One has to wonder if this person had come to the
same conclusion as the various bodies, would it have asked yet another person
to study the recommendation of this person.) However, given the manner in
which the Supreme Court has behaved when it comes to the post-Godhra riots,
perhaps the court found out that the recommendation of the Amicus Curiae to
not conform the rules of the law, however it may have been stretched. That
is why, perhaps, it passed on to the SIT to take a decision instead of giving
a firm direction.
This episode reminds me of the one-man Banerjee
Commission, instituted by Lalu Prasad when he was the railways minister, to
inquire about the train burning in Godhra. The commission reported that the
fire was
accidental, and perhaps started by the people who were killed. A previous
commission, after detailed forensice investigation, found that the buring
was part of a conspiracy. Today, the secularists only talk about the Banerjee
Commission and not the earlier commission. They do not tell that the one-man
commission undertook the exercise in two days, just as the Amicus Curiae worked
for three days.
Perhaps in the future, it should be mandated
that the state resources should not be 'wasted' on making any detailed investigations,
but the task should be assigned to a person whose qualification is prose,
and ask him/her to write a report with a pre-determined conclusion.
Not only are the people not allowed to get
ou with their lives, but also ensure that the game players are not told to
stop their evil agenda.
