Author: Swapan Dasgupta
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: November 27, 2004
There was a time when Communists
believed that the law was an instrument of class oppression, inherently
incapable of delivering justice to the poor and the underdog. It speaks
volumes for Indian democracy that Left organisations now routinely invoke
the glory and majesty of law. Assertions that the "law must take its course"
and that "all are equal in the eyes of law" have become clichés
in the age of Public Interest Litigation and judicial activism.
In recent weeks, the celebration
of law has touched dizzying heights. Cabinet Ministers and Chief Ministers
have been unseated on the strength of non-bailable warrants and even a
person of such exalted standing as the Shankaracharya of Kanchi has been
remanded in police and judicial custody. The rule of law, it would seem,
is finally upon us.
Yet, there are disquieting trends.
In Kancheepuram, Kathiravan, a key prosecution witness in the Sankar Raman
murder case, told the Magistrate that he had been tortured by the Tamil
Nadu police into implicating the Kanchi seer. Subsequently, two other witnesses,
Maathu Bhaskar and Sylvester Stalin, stated that the identification parade
organised by the police was rigged.
These are serious charges and raise
disconcerting questions about the real motives behind the arrest of the
Shankaracharya. If the three witnesses are telling the truth, there is
every reason to believe that the Kanchi seer has been framed. Yet, to prevent
him from securing bail, two additional cases have been slapped against
him. After all, or so the argument goes, a free Shankaracharya has the
resources to scuttle the inquiries and tamper with the evidence.
A similar drama is being enacted
in Mumbai's Mazgaon Sessions Court. In the celebrated Best Bakery Case,
the star witness Zahira Sheikh has publicly alleged that she was intimidated
into making false accusations against the accused by activist Teesta Setalvad.
According to Zahira, Teesta told her that "You have to fight for your community
for which even if you have to tell lies, you will have to tell lies before
the court."
Zahira's claim has been backed by
her brother Nafitullah Sheikh who has charged Teesta with misusing his
signature for her own ends. To complicate matters, Nafitullah's estranged
wife Yasmeen Sheikh has accused Nafitullah and Zahira of being economical
with the truth. They, in turn, have suggested Yasmeen wasn't even present
at the Best Bakery on the night of March 1, 2002, when a mob went berserk.
The case has taken an interest twist
because of allegations of money changing hands. It has been suggested that
Teesta enticed Zahira into changing her original testimony to the court
in Vadodara. Likewise, there are charges that a pro-saffron Janadhikar
Samiti is bankrolling Zahira's second U-turn.
Zahira's spat with Teesta could
have been treated as a private matter had it not been for the fact that
the Best Bakery Case is no ordinary criminal trial. The re-trial in Mumbai
has arisen out of the Supreme Court's virtual expression of no-confidence
in the Gujarat Judiciary. It has come about because Zahira said she lied
to the Vadodara court, an admission that formed the basis of Teesta's campaign
to move the case out of Gujarat.
If it now transpires that Teesta
has influenced and intimidated Zahira and her family into giving a made-to-order
testimony, it constitutes a charge of subverting justice, not to speak
of misleading the Supreme Court for political ends. By the same logic that
explains the Shankaracharya's continuing incarceration, Teesta's right
to move freely in Mumbai should have been curtailed.
After all, Teesta is not an ordinary
citizen; she is the most public face of secular activism. Her ability to
move Governments and influence the media is not in question. Yet, the Mumbai
High Court has decreed that Teesta be given a 72-hour notice of any possible
arrest. It is a convenience that must be appreciated because she is the
conscience of secularism. In today's India, she has more rights than the
Shankaracharya.
In the eyes of law, all are equal.
But some are more equal than others.
