- News>
- India
Quit if you cannot punish rioters: SC to Guj govt
New Delhi, Sept 12: In a scathing attack on the Guj govt for filing an `eye wash` of an appeal in the Best Bakery riot case, the SC today doubted the state`s intentions on punishing the guilty and observed that it should quit if it cannot punish the rioters. Guj govt to study SC observations
New Delhi, Sept 12: In a scathing attack on the
Guj govt for filing an "eye wash" of an appeal in
the Best Bakery riot case, the SC today doubted the
state's intentions on punishing the guilty and observed that
it should quit if it cannot punish the rioters.
Flaring up after perusing the grounds of appeal filed in
the High Court challenging acquittal of all the accused in the
case, a bench of Chief Justice V N Khare, Justice Brijesh
Kumar and Justice S B Sinha questioned the "Raj Dharma" of
the Narendra Modi government.
"I have no faith left in the prosecution and the Gujarat
government. I am not saying article 356. You have to protect
people and punish the guilty. What else is Raj Dharma? You
quit if you cannot prosecute the guilty," an anguished Chief
Justice said.
The bench then summoned the Chief Secretary of the State and the Director General of Police and directed them to be personally present before the court on September 19 to answer as to "who has drafted such an appeal" to be filed before the court. Additional Solicitor General Mukul Rohatgi appearing for the state government said that it was not an earlier system in which the Chief Ministers depended on the mercy of others. "He is elected democratically". The Chief Justice shot back saying, "Democracy does not mean you will not prosecute anyone."
The Gujarat government counsel said that there were some shortcomings in the criminal justice system and added that in the last 40 years of riots in the country not many rioters have been brought to book.
He cited the example of 1984 anti-Sikh riots cases and said that not a single person had been found guilty so far.
This angered the court even more as it questioned the state government saying "are you saying that the rioters in Gujarat should also be acquitted. What else are you saying?"
The court was hearing an appeal filed by National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), which has sought transfer of Best Bakery, Godhra carnage and two other riot-related cases outside the state.
Appearing for NHRC, senior advocate P P Rao read out the grounds of appeal filed by the state government in the High Court in the Best Bakery case and said despite the trial court indicting the manner in which wrong evidence was collected by prosecution and wrong accused were roped in, the state has not sought retrial of the case.
After patiently hearing the NHRC, the bench sought the response of the Gujarat government which repeatedly pleaded that it be given some time to amend the grounds of appeal while assuring that it would make them in consonance with the views expressed by the apex court.
It also said that the high court, even if there was no prayer for re-trail, could order fresh trial and that the apex court should await the outcome of the appeal in the High Court.
The bench, without taking note of the pleas of the state government, criticised it severely for not making proper grounds of appeal before the High Court and still expecting the High Court to do everything to correct the wrongs.
"You do not take any plea and it is for the courts to do everything. Is this an appeal. Even a counsel with one year's experience will not draft such an appeal. I know there are several eminent lawyers in Gujarat," the Chief Justice said.
On the appeal, the court said, "It appears to us that it is an eye-wash. It is just an eye-wash and nothing else."
Warning the state government that it would not be a silent spectator to all these acts and incidents keeping in view the prayer of the NHRC for transfer of the trail outside the state, the bench said, "We will not be silent spectators. We will do it if the state keeps silent in its prayers before the High Court."
Expressing serious reservations over the manner in which the prosecution conducted itself in the best bakery case before the trial court, the apex court said "there is no cross-examination as to why so many witnesses turned hostile. This shows the nature of prosecution.
"We do not have any trust left in your prosecution agency. There appears to be some collusion between the government and prosecution. It is a case where 14 persons were burnt alive and is this the way prosecution is conducted," the court observed.
Rohtagi pleaded with the court not to have an impression of collusion between the government and the prosecution and said that the apex court should await the outcome of the appeal before the High Court.
The bench, which was in an unforgiving mood, said, "What impression will one get if one looks into the appeal. The way you have conducted the prosecution before the trial court and the way you have filed the appeal, it appears you will repeat the same before the High Court."
Counsel for the government stated that there seems to be some shortcomings in the criminal justice system as not many who have indulged in riots across the country have been punished.
When Rohtagi said that the law in this regard required to be amended, the bench asked "who will amend it, the government or the courts?"
Earlier, NHRC counsel had said that the trial court had observed that whenever riots took place, the police invariably arrived late and then indulged in roping in wrong persons and creating wrong evidence.
Saying that the trial courts were helpless when the prosecution provided wrong facts and wrong accused, the bench observed, "We have absolute faith in them. But if you do not bring facts and evidence before them, what will they do than acquit the accused?"
The counsel for NHRC said that as the witnesses have turned hostile, the high court could do nothing on the basis of their statements and requested the court to consider directing a fresh trial in the matter.
Bureau Report
The bench then summoned the Chief Secretary of the State and the Director General of Police and directed them to be personally present before the court on September 19 to answer as to "who has drafted such an appeal" to be filed before the court. Additional Solicitor General Mukul Rohatgi appearing for the state government said that it was not an earlier system in which the Chief Ministers depended on the mercy of others. "He is elected democratically". The Chief Justice shot back saying, "Democracy does not mean you will not prosecute anyone."
The Gujarat government counsel said that there were some shortcomings in the criminal justice system and added that in the last 40 years of riots in the country not many rioters have been brought to book.
He cited the example of 1984 anti-Sikh riots cases and said that not a single person had been found guilty so far.
This angered the court even more as it questioned the state government saying "are you saying that the rioters in Gujarat should also be acquitted. What else are you saying?"
The court was hearing an appeal filed by National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), which has sought transfer of Best Bakery, Godhra carnage and two other riot-related cases outside the state.
Appearing for NHRC, senior advocate P P Rao read out the grounds of appeal filed by the state government in the High Court in the Best Bakery case and said despite the trial court indicting the manner in which wrong evidence was collected by prosecution and wrong accused were roped in, the state has not sought retrial of the case.
After patiently hearing the NHRC, the bench sought the response of the Gujarat government which repeatedly pleaded that it be given some time to amend the grounds of appeal while assuring that it would make them in consonance with the views expressed by the apex court.
It also said that the high court, even if there was no prayer for re-trail, could order fresh trial and that the apex court should await the outcome of the appeal in the High Court.
The bench, without taking note of the pleas of the state government, criticised it severely for not making proper grounds of appeal before the High Court and still expecting the High Court to do everything to correct the wrongs.
"You do not take any plea and it is for the courts to do everything. Is this an appeal. Even a counsel with one year's experience will not draft such an appeal. I know there are several eminent lawyers in Gujarat," the Chief Justice said.
On the appeal, the court said, "It appears to us that it is an eye-wash. It is just an eye-wash and nothing else."
Warning the state government that it would not be a silent spectator to all these acts and incidents keeping in view the prayer of the NHRC for transfer of the trail outside the state, the bench said, "We will not be silent spectators. We will do it if the state keeps silent in its prayers before the High Court."
Expressing serious reservations over the manner in which the prosecution conducted itself in the best bakery case before the trial court, the apex court said "there is no cross-examination as to why so many witnesses turned hostile. This shows the nature of prosecution.
"We do not have any trust left in your prosecution agency. There appears to be some collusion between the government and prosecution. It is a case where 14 persons were burnt alive and is this the way prosecution is conducted," the court observed.
Rohtagi pleaded with the court not to have an impression of collusion between the government and the prosecution and said that the apex court should await the outcome of the appeal before the High Court.
The bench, which was in an unforgiving mood, said, "What impression will one get if one looks into the appeal. The way you have conducted the prosecution before the trial court and the way you have filed the appeal, it appears you will repeat the same before the High Court."
Counsel for the government stated that there seems to be some shortcomings in the criminal justice system as not many who have indulged in riots across the country have been punished.
When Rohtagi said that the law in this regard required to be amended, the bench asked "who will amend it, the government or the courts?"
Earlier, NHRC counsel had said that the trial court had observed that whenever riots took place, the police invariably arrived late and then indulged in roping in wrong persons and creating wrong evidence.
Saying that the trial courts were helpless when the prosecution provided wrong facts and wrong accused, the bench observed, "We have absolute faith in them. But if you do not bring facts and evidence before them, what will they do than acquit the accused?"
The counsel for NHRC said that as the witnesses have turned hostile, the high court could do nothing on the basis of their statements and requested the court to consider directing a fresh trial in the matter.
Bureau Report