Raju Ramachandran, the amicus curiae of the Supreme Court in Zakia Jafri’s petition in the Gulberg Society carnage, put the SC order in perspective.
How do you read the SC order of September 12?
The Supreme Court’s order advances the cause of justice. The petitioner had approached the Court mainly seeking the registration of an FIR on the basis of subsequent information that she came to know about the events. The Court has got the matter investigated, got an independent opinion, and directed the matter to be placed in court: a stage beyond the filing of an FIR. The Court has ensured that the law is set in motion, and has thus fully discharged its responsibility as the highest court.
This is the legal position but the popular message and the political opinion on the SC order is that Modi has emerged victorious. Your comment.
I will not make a political comment. What I would say is that there's no victory or defeat here. And there is neither exoneration nor indictment at this stage. The SC has very carefully and scrupulously refrained from making any comments on the merits of the allegations in Jafri’s complaint. But while the Court has decided not to monitor the case any further, it has done complete justice. How? The petitioner’s grievance was that an FIR was not being registered; what she has got now is an investigation done under the supervision of the SC itself and a direction to place the investigation report before the proper court, in addition to an independent assessment of the investigated material. The SC order has ensured that the process of law is set in motion. This order is neither a victory of X nor defeat of Y; it's the triumph of the Rule of Law, and of justice.
So, it’s not a setback, however minor, for the petitioners as it’s being perceived?
Not at all.
What are the implications of the order for the Gulbarg Society case that’s now being heard in Gujarat?
If that court decides that there is sufficient evidence against those whom the complainant had sought the registration of the FIR, such persons will also be arraigned as accused in that case.
So Modi and 61 others now stand as “accused”?
The persons in Jafri's complaint are not “accused” in the legal sense. A person becomes an “accused” when the police file a chargesheet or the Magistrate takes cognisance.
The SC appointed the SIT, it reportedly reached findings/conclusion different from and not borne out by its own investigation and evidence on record. The SC then directed in May this year that you as the Amicus Curiae would review SIT reports and material. In the light of your observations, would you say the SIT reached wrong/misplaced conclusions? How would you react to the infirmities in the SIT report, such as they are in the public domain?
Since the SIT’s report and my report are confidential till they are placed before the appropriate Court, I will not answer these questions. But the entire purpose of appointing an amicus in the first place was to ensure that if another view is possible, it would be given. It’s the additional safeguard now available.
Are we to believe that even the SC-appointed investigating authority cannot be trusted to do a fair job?
This question is based on the assumption that the SIT has not done a proper job. This is wrong. There is always scope for a different inference being drawn from the same material, and the Supreme Court has ensured that if a different view is possible, it would be made available to the trial court.
If there are differences between SIT report and the amicus’ report, how will they be resolved, for example, if SIT says there's no prosecutable evidence against Mr Modi but you disagree?
Firstly, it's your assumption that the SIT report contains this observation; I cannot confirm or deny it right now. However, assuming that there are two divergent views or conclusions -- where one is saying so-and-so should be prosecuted or there's material to proceed and the other says there's no material and a closure report should be filed -- the concerned trial court has the final word. That court will decide if the matter is fit for closure or not. As investigating agency, if the SIT feels there are no grounds to go further then it's entitled to file a closure report, but eventually the court will decide if this is justified. There's another aspect -- the complainant also has the right to file a protest petition asking for re-consideration of all the material placed before the court. And, in such an event the amicus’ report would be another viewpoint available to that court when it scrutinises the closure report.
So, even if there are divergences in the two reports, your report would be as binding as the SIT report? I ask because SC order uses the word "may", which could be discretionary, instead of "shall" which is mandatory, to consider the amicus’ report.
The amicus’ view given to the SC will be relevant in the trial court as well. The very fact that the SC appointed an amicus curiae in this matter means that it believed the matter required another independent view apart from its own high-level SIT. Viewed in this light, the word "may" is not at all discretionary. Lawyers know that 'may' can be read as 'shall' and vice versa, depending upon the context. Also, the complainants would have the right to ask for the amicus’ report to be placed on record, since it is a document available with the SIT. But neither the SIT report nor the amicus’ report is “binding” as far as the court is concerned. They are both relevant.
The SC made some initial observations which suggested its' dissatisfaction with the SIT. But the Sept 12 order puts faith back in it. This is contradictory, isn't it?
If the SC made some oral observations, it did not mean dissatisfaction with the SIT as an institution; it only highlighted the need to address the concerns which the amicus had raised. The amicus was supposed to look into the material and give an independent view. When the amicus was asked to give an independent assessment, it did not show lack of faith in SIT. The idea was that, given the importance of the matter, if another different view was possible, it should be made available. That was the whole idea of having an amicus. We take second opinions on a number of issues, a second opinion doesn't necessarily mean lack of faith in the first one. I believe the SC was being careful in ensuring that if another view was possible, it should be taken into account.
Conversely, in the final stage now, when the SC says the SIT should place its report before the trial court, that’s again in no way an endorsement of the SIT findings; the court has only ensured that the SIT, having done its job, places its report before the appropriate court, with an additional safeguard that the independent assessment is also placed simultaneously. It would be a mistake to read the SC order as an endorsement of the SIT, or the amicus’ report.
Now the onus is on the trial court in Gujarat. Isn’t this a paradox because the SC had earlier transferred 2002 cases out of Gujarat but appears to have put faith in the trial court there now?
There is no paradox. The fact that cases were transferred out of Gujarat several years back in the light of the situation then prevailing does not mean that the Supreme Court should lose faith in the entire Gujarat judiciary, and that too, forever. If at any stage there is a specific grievance against a particular judge, or there is basis for an apprehension that justice will not be done, the superior courts, including the Supreme Court, will not hesitate to intervene.
An edited version of this interview appeared in print
While reviewing the transcript of my interview (Sep 26), I omitted to correct an error. The sentence “Lawyers know that ‘may’ is ‘shall’ and vice versa” should read “Lawyers know that ‘may’ can be read as ‘shall’ and vice versa, depending on the context.”
Apropos Raju Ramachandran’s interview, the amicus curiae does not do his own investigation. He merely analyses the sit’s report and expresses his opinion. So, however hard he may try, he cannot manufacture an “indictment” that cannot be found in the sit report. So the court will have to go along with the sit report and safely file a closure.
Raju Ramachandran’s statement (Sep 26) that the SC order is neither a victory of X nor a defeat of Y is not entirely accurate. There is certainly some material evidence in the sit’s report to implicate Modi and his party, otherwise the apex court could not have told the trial court to take action. Had there been nothing worth prosecuting on, it would have thrown out or closed the case instead of sending it back to the trial court.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
Show me a court verdict or a commission report that unequivocally gives the accused a clean chit. Even when a DNA evidence is used, they say one in a million chance that accused is guilty. How can AC say he gives Mr. Modi a clean chit? So he plays a little politics and gives his "nither nor" answer.
AC's opinion cannot override the SC's judgment. The judgment is very clear.
>> The AC's report is not going to be presented separately to the trial court. Lets get our facts straight first.
The amicu curiae says, "what she has got now is an investigation done under the supervision of the SC itself and a direction to place the investigation report before the proper court, in addition to an independent assessment of the investigated material." It is futile to try to parse it further at this stage.
And, in such an event the amicus’ report would be another viewpoint available to that court when it scrutinises the closure report."
The AC's report is not going to be presented separately to the trial court. Lets get our facts straight first.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT