On 6th May 2011, in a blog post this blogger wrote:
Consider how far this process has strayed:
- To begin with we have the Supreme Court assuming the role of the Executive in running an investigation
- Add to that the fact that this investigation is on a matter which the federal division of powers deems to be a state subject
- The matter being investigated has long ceased to be about criminal acts of commission with political acts of omission being brought in
- An investigation by the Court appointed agency not being satisfactory to assorted NGOs and a vaguely defined court appointed guardian of public interest, a second investigation is ordered.
- That second investigation now being set aside on hold an open ended review has been ordered with wide discretion being granted to this “court appointed guardian of public interest”
So what we now have is a court appointed left Lib lawyer with the authority to quiz anyone and give criminal/legal opinion on what is essentially a political case …
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.
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
Three months later here we are again as the 2002 riots cottage industry once again has sought to pre-empt the judicial process by leaking what it claims to be the Amicus Curiae report submitted to the Supreme Court. Before one even gets into the substance of the report it must be asked:
Why Ashish Khetan and the Tehelka Magazine must not be held in contempt by the Supreme Court for the manner in which they have sought to prejudice the Judicial process with no respect to the Supreme Court’s orders ?
It is no surprise that this latest attempt at recycling the Amicus Curiae leak has come from Ashish Khetan and Tehelka magazine. Past attempts by this discredited duo at selective leaks and manufactured stings having fallen flat they have once again attempted to queer the pitch ahead of a high stakes election, albeit this time in Uttar Pradesh.
The story itself is less about any new findings and more about trying to make out a criminal case of what are essentially political issues, while recycling much of discredited cop Sanjiv Bhatt’s lies.
That even the Amicus Curiae could not come up with anything on the core complaint of a pre-planned conspiracy becomes apparent from this sentence:
Though there were also many points on which he concurred with SIT Chairman Raghavan the main point of concurrence was that, on the basis of material gathered by the SIT so far, there was not enough ground to charge Modi of conspiracy.
With the Sadbhavana series of fasts coming to a conclusion today one would have hoped that the 10th anniversary would have been about healing the wounds and reconciliation. Instead we have this pathetic attempt at further vitiating the atmosphere in Gujarat while ensuring neither actual justice nor closure is delivered to the victims of the 2002 riots.
Simultaneously we also have this cynical attempt by the Congress to play up the polemics over the 2002 Gujarat riots in a last ditch attempt to consolidate the Muslim vote behind it in Uttar Pradesh.
Pathetic indeed ….