01-31-2005, 04:59 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Avoid the political thicket </b>
A Surya Prakash
The "timely" release of an interim report by the UC Banerjee Committee, which is supposedly looking into the cause of the fire that engulfed a compartment of the Sabarmati Express at Godhra on February 27, 2002, and its strange findings, have raised serious questions about the post-retirement conduct of judges.
Mr Lalu Prasad Yadav, the Union Railway Minister, runs the State Government of Bihar by proxy. Holding his political power of attorney is his wife Rabri Devi. Mr Yadav depends heavily on the Muslim vote and is willing to do anything to keep this vote in his bag. The people of the State are to elect a new state government in February. All citizens who have access to the electronic or print media are aware of this political calendar. These are matters of common sense and common knowledge. Yet, a person who was a judge of our Supreme Court at one time, yields to the political time table of Mr Yadav, presents an "interim report" and allows his findings to be used in a crass manner for political gains.
This is not all. There are several other issues involving the conduct of Mr Banerjee which I wish to place before fellow citizens including those in the fields of law and justice. The first is the timing of the so-called interim report. The Godhra carnage happened three years ago. Heavens would not have fallen if Mr Banerjee had chosen to submit his findings a month later. Second, only a summary of the findings have been made public. We, the citizens of India, do not have access to the full text of the interim report. Nor do Mr Yadav's political opponents. So, it is the sole prerogative of Mr Yadav to wave a sheaf of papers in public and talk about the extraordinary findings of Mr Banerjee!
The second issue - and this is truly disturbing - is the committee's findings on what caused the fire. The facts about Godhra, as established by eye witness accounts and media reports, are as follows: A mob of irate Muslims attacked the Sabarmati Express soon after it left the Godhra Railway Station on February 27, 2002, and pelted it with stones. The mob surrounded the train, some persons entered the compartments, pulled the chain and brought the train to a halt. Reports from Godhra that day said the mob set fire to some coaches of this train.
Coach S-6, which bore the brunt, was soon on fire and within minutes the flames engulfed it, and 59 Hindus were burnt alive. The police, who investigated this ghastly act, say a bunch of conspirators met at a guest house in Godhra on February 26 and decided to torch the Sabarmati Express in the early hours of February 27. 140 litres of petrol was procured for this purpose, kept at the guest house and used the next day.
The gory details of this conspiracy are available in the confessional statement made by one of the accused before the chief judicial magistrate. Any one who has heard or read the statements of eye witnesses soon after the event are aware that a mob of Muslims attacked the train. Yet, Mr Banerjee maintains deafening silence about this fact and about what that mob was up to that morning. He now wants us to believe that the 59 Hindus roasted themselves alive or that the flames broke out "accidentally". The Hindu karsevaks were cooking their meals in the coach, he says, to buttress his conclusion that the fire emanated from within the coach. Of course, no Muslim is to be blamed!
Mr Banerjee's conclusions are so wide off the mark that the special investigation team of the Railway Police has immediately contradicted him and said it had evidence of a conspiracy hatched by a group of people in Godhra to carry out the attack. Further, the day after Mr Lalu Prasad Yadav began touting his committee's findings, Mr Noel Parmar, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Railways) and chief investigator in the case, told the Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice GT Nanavati and Justice KG Shah that the incident was the result of a "pre-planned conspiracy" and not an accident. He also said police investigations had thrown up terrorist links.
The third issue is the fact that two of Mr Banerjee's brothers from the judicature - Justice GT Nanavati and Justice KG Shah - are currently probing the Godhra carnage and are scheduled to complete their work this year. If at the end of the day justice is to be done, what should be the work ethic among the justices examining the same incident or different aspects of the same incident? If truth be the singular pursuit of judges inquiring into a matter, is it proper for one judge to surprise another with his findings? Despite the surprise element, Justice Nanavati has kept his cool and said Godhra "could be an act of terrorism". Further, as he has pointed out, "the role of the mob cannot be ignored".
How is it that retired judges allow politicians and governments to fool around with their findings? At times governments have displayed gross contempt for the findings of commissions headed by retired judges of the supreme court. Here are a few examples:
<b>The Thakkar Commission, which investigated the assassination of Indira Gandhi, concluded that it had reasonable grounds to suspect the involvement of RK Dhawan, her special assistant, in the assassination of the prime minister. In fact, Justice Thakkar saw him as a key conspirator</b>. The Rajiv Gandhi Government tried unsuccessfully to keep Justice Thakkar's report away from Parliament. Finally, when Arun Shourie, then Editor of the Indian Express, scooped Justice Thakkar's findings, the Government was forced to make the report public. It, however, said no action was contemplated against Mr Dhawan because a team of police officers had examined the charges and cleared him!
<b>Mr Dhawan went on to become an MP and a Union Minister after Justice Thakkar's report was made public. What are we to make of all this?</b> Can there be anything more galling for a judge than the elevation of the person he saw as the chief conspirator in the assassination of a Prime Minister, to responsible positions in Government? Where does this leave the judge? Then came the commissions of inquiry relating to the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi.
The panel headed by <b>Justice JS Verma held the Union Government responsible for failing to provide adequate protection to Rajiv Gandhi after he ceased to be Prime Minister. The Congress, which was in power, rejected this conclusion and claimed that the security cover "was comprehensive and adequate to meet the perceived high level of threat"</b>. The Government told Parliament that it had been acknowledged by the commission that if the prescribed security arrangements had been strictly enforced, the assassination could have been averted. "This makes it clear that the prescribed arrangements were adequate," it said. The Government also rejected the commission's findings in regard to conduct of the Intelligence Bureau.
<b>The Congress is, however, in the habit of temporarily utilising the findings of such commissions to achieve political objectives.</b> The party adopted this strategy vis-a-vis the MC Jain Commission which probed the sequence of events leading to the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi.<b> The most shocking part of the report was the accusation made by the commission against all Tamil speaking people and the State Government.</b> The Congress, however, used these vague generalisations and innuendoes in the report to condemn the DMK, which was a constituent of the United Front, and to pull down the Gujral Government.<b> The Congress and the DMK are currently partners in the United Progressive Alliance. Where does that leave Justice MC Jain?</b>
<b>Retired judges who are called upon to head commissions and committees need to take stock of the fate that befell reports produced by their predecessors and avoid situations in which their assignments and labours are seen as part of somebody's political agenda. In other words, they must clearly avoid the political thicket</b>. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A Surya Prakash
The "timely" release of an interim report by the UC Banerjee Committee, which is supposedly looking into the cause of the fire that engulfed a compartment of the Sabarmati Express at Godhra on February 27, 2002, and its strange findings, have raised serious questions about the post-retirement conduct of judges.
Mr Lalu Prasad Yadav, the Union Railway Minister, runs the State Government of Bihar by proxy. Holding his political power of attorney is his wife Rabri Devi. Mr Yadav depends heavily on the Muslim vote and is willing to do anything to keep this vote in his bag. The people of the State are to elect a new state government in February. All citizens who have access to the electronic or print media are aware of this political calendar. These are matters of common sense and common knowledge. Yet, a person who was a judge of our Supreme Court at one time, yields to the political time table of Mr Yadav, presents an "interim report" and allows his findings to be used in a crass manner for political gains.
This is not all. There are several other issues involving the conduct of Mr Banerjee which I wish to place before fellow citizens including those in the fields of law and justice. The first is the timing of the so-called interim report. The Godhra carnage happened three years ago. Heavens would not have fallen if Mr Banerjee had chosen to submit his findings a month later. Second, only a summary of the findings have been made public. We, the citizens of India, do not have access to the full text of the interim report. Nor do Mr Yadav's political opponents. So, it is the sole prerogative of Mr Yadav to wave a sheaf of papers in public and talk about the extraordinary findings of Mr Banerjee!
The second issue - and this is truly disturbing - is the committee's findings on what caused the fire. The facts about Godhra, as established by eye witness accounts and media reports, are as follows: A mob of irate Muslims attacked the Sabarmati Express soon after it left the Godhra Railway Station on February 27, 2002, and pelted it with stones. The mob surrounded the train, some persons entered the compartments, pulled the chain and brought the train to a halt. Reports from Godhra that day said the mob set fire to some coaches of this train.
Coach S-6, which bore the brunt, was soon on fire and within minutes the flames engulfed it, and 59 Hindus were burnt alive. The police, who investigated this ghastly act, say a bunch of conspirators met at a guest house in Godhra on February 26 and decided to torch the Sabarmati Express in the early hours of February 27. 140 litres of petrol was procured for this purpose, kept at the guest house and used the next day.
The gory details of this conspiracy are available in the confessional statement made by one of the accused before the chief judicial magistrate. Any one who has heard or read the statements of eye witnesses soon after the event are aware that a mob of Muslims attacked the train. Yet, Mr Banerjee maintains deafening silence about this fact and about what that mob was up to that morning. He now wants us to believe that the 59 Hindus roasted themselves alive or that the flames broke out "accidentally". The Hindu karsevaks were cooking their meals in the coach, he says, to buttress his conclusion that the fire emanated from within the coach. Of course, no Muslim is to be blamed!
Mr Banerjee's conclusions are so wide off the mark that the special investigation team of the Railway Police has immediately contradicted him and said it had evidence of a conspiracy hatched by a group of people in Godhra to carry out the attack. Further, the day after Mr Lalu Prasad Yadav began touting his committee's findings, Mr Noel Parmar, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Railways) and chief investigator in the case, told the Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice GT Nanavati and Justice KG Shah that the incident was the result of a "pre-planned conspiracy" and not an accident. He also said police investigations had thrown up terrorist links.
The third issue is the fact that two of Mr Banerjee's brothers from the judicature - Justice GT Nanavati and Justice KG Shah - are currently probing the Godhra carnage and are scheduled to complete their work this year. If at the end of the day justice is to be done, what should be the work ethic among the justices examining the same incident or different aspects of the same incident? If truth be the singular pursuit of judges inquiring into a matter, is it proper for one judge to surprise another with his findings? Despite the surprise element, Justice Nanavati has kept his cool and said Godhra "could be an act of terrorism". Further, as he has pointed out, "the role of the mob cannot be ignored".
How is it that retired judges allow politicians and governments to fool around with their findings? At times governments have displayed gross contempt for the findings of commissions headed by retired judges of the supreme court. Here are a few examples:
<b>The Thakkar Commission, which investigated the assassination of Indira Gandhi, concluded that it had reasonable grounds to suspect the involvement of RK Dhawan, her special assistant, in the assassination of the prime minister. In fact, Justice Thakkar saw him as a key conspirator</b>. The Rajiv Gandhi Government tried unsuccessfully to keep Justice Thakkar's report away from Parliament. Finally, when Arun Shourie, then Editor of the Indian Express, scooped Justice Thakkar's findings, the Government was forced to make the report public. It, however, said no action was contemplated against Mr Dhawan because a team of police officers had examined the charges and cleared him!
<b>Mr Dhawan went on to become an MP and a Union Minister after Justice Thakkar's report was made public. What are we to make of all this?</b> Can there be anything more galling for a judge than the elevation of the person he saw as the chief conspirator in the assassination of a Prime Minister, to responsible positions in Government? Where does this leave the judge? Then came the commissions of inquiry relating to the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi.
The panel headed by <b>Justice JS Verma held the Union Government responsible for failing to provide adequate protection to Rajiv Gandhi after he ceased to be Prime Minister. The Congress, which was in power, rejected this conclusion and claimed that the security cover "was comprehensive and adequate to meet the perceived high level of threat"</b>. The Government told Parliament that it had been acknowledged by the commission that if the prescribed security arrangements had been strictly enforced, the assassination could have been averted. "This makes it clear that the prescribed arrangements were adequate," it said. The Government also rejected the commission's findings in regard to conduct of the Intelligence Bureau.
<b>The Congress is, however, in the habit of temporarily utilising the findings of such commissions to achieve political objectives.</b> The party adopted this strategy vis-a-vis the MC Jain Commission which probed the sequence of events leading to the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi.<b> The most shocking part of the report was the accusation made by the commission against all Tamil speaking people and the State Government.</b> The Congress, however, used these vague generalisations and innuendoes in the report to condemn the DMK, which was a constituent of the United Front, and to pull down the Gujral Government.<b> The Congress and the DMK are currently partners in the United Progressive Alliance. Where does that leave Justice MC Jain?</b>
<b>Retired judges who are called upon to head commissions and committees need to take stock of the fate that befell reports produced by their predecessors and avoid situations in which their assignments and labours are seen as part of somebody's political agenda. In other words, they must clearly avoid the political thicket</b>. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->