Sunday, Aug 09, 2020 | Last Update : 08:56 PM IST

138th Day Of Lockdown

Maharashtra49026232728117092 Tamil Nadu2850242275754690 Andhra Pradesh2170401296151939 Karnataka164924842322998 Delhi1441271293624098 Uttar Pradesh118038698332028 West Bengal89666630601954 Telangana7751354330615 Bihar7578648673419 Gujarat68855517922604 Assam5549737225132 Rajasthan5065636310776 Odisha4419328698307 Haryana4005433444467 Madhya Pradesh3729827621962 Kerala3312020862107 Jammu and Kashmir2439020862459 Punjab2193014040539 Jharkhand165427503154 Chhatisgarh11408831987 Uttarakhand89015731112 Goa7947559570 Tripura6014408437 Puducherry5123291475 Manipur3635192711 Himachal Pradesh3242201513 Nagaland26888937 Arunachal Pradesh204913263 Chandigarh137482023 Meghalaya10234236 Sikkim8544061 Mizoram5672890
  Opinion   Columnists  29 Apr 2018  Naroda Patiya: A case for independent public prosecutors?

Naroda Patiya: A case for independent public prosecutors?

The writer is an author and lawyer based in Mumbai
Published : Apr 29, 2018, 5:23 am IST
Updated : Apr 29, 2018, 5:24 am IST

Congress leader Arjun Modhwadia accused the prosecution of lapses, saying, “Prosecution lawyers drafted the affidavits of some of the accused”.

11 people belonging to the minority community were killed in Naroda Gam in 2002 riots during a bandh call made to protest the Godhra train burning incident of February 27, 2002. (Photo: AFP/File)
 11 people belonging to the minority community were killed in Naroda Gam in 2002 riots during a bandh call made to protest the Godhra train burning incident of February 27, 2002. (Photo: AFP/File)

The prosecutor has been under a cloud for a long time; of late that cloud over his office has darkened. On April 20, Maya Kodnani, a minister in Narendra Modi’s Gujarat government, was acquitted in the Naroda Patiya case in the 2002 pogrom of Muslims. Kodnani became a minister after the riots. In 2012, she was convicted by a trial court as the “kingpin” of the riots and given a 28-year prison term. The high court acquitted her on appeal. Congress leader Arjun Modhwadia accused the prosecution of lapses, saying, “Prosecution lawyers drafted the affidavits of some of the accused”.

Her acquittal has been received with disbelief. She was seen by some at the scene, exhorting the mobs to kill Muslims, distributing swords and assuring the mob that there would be no inquiries by the police. Opinion on the role of the prosecution must be reserved. It is most unfortunate that its role in Gujarat has come under criticism.

 

Crime eradication depends on the efficiency and integrity of three institutions. The police investigate and collect the evidence. The prosecutor presents it to the court and asks that the guilty be punished. The judge renders justice. All three are creatures of the law. All three have seen better days.

On April 17, the Maharashtra government abruptly cancelled the appointment of the special public prosecutor (SPP) Dhiraj Mirajkar, who was appointed in November 2015, in the Khwaja Yunus custodial death case. That he was the third to be sacked in this very case reflects the state government’s disposition. Yunus, a 27-year-old software engineer, was arrested in Mumbai in December 2002 for a bombing in Ghatkopar that killed two. Barely 10 days later, he was said to have “disappeared” while under police escort to Aurangabad. A CID probe showed that the police had tortured him to death.

 

Four police officials were finally put on trial, though 14 were named. Two months later, SPP Mirajkar asked that four police officials be made additional accused in this 15-year-old case. He was sacked. Reflecting on the dismissal, Mirajkar said, “(I)t is a direct fallout of the application I made to include four officers as accused... the government is going to make every effort to dodge the charge.” On Jan 17, Dr Abdul Mateen, a prime eyewitness, told the court that he had seen those four other inspectors assault Yunus, who was vomiting blood. The prosecutor was sacked even before the court could decide on his application to include them as accused.

 

How can one expect a prosecutor to discharge his duties honestly if the state’s sword of Damocles hangs over his head, ensuring that the favourite of the politicians in favour escapes punishment?

In the 1970s, Congress MP Amrit Nahata produced the film Kissa Kursi Ka, a satire on Indira Gandhi and her son Sanjay. In February 1979, Sanjay Gandhi and former information minister V.C. Shukla were convicted of a conspiracy to destroy the film during the Emergency and sentenced to two years in jail. The Supreme Court of India began hearing their appeals that November. By January 1980, Indira Gandhi had returned to power. The prosecutor, Ram Jethmalani, who had appeared for months in the trial court, was dropped. His successor, one Joginder Singh Wasu, argued for 15 minutes on a record of 6,500 pages. In April 1980, a three-member bench of the apex court acquitted the accused in a scrappy judgement.

 

The Indian Criminal Procedure Code vests in the governments, Central and State, the power to appoint public prosecutors and a special public prosecutor for a special case (Section 24). He is removable at its whim. Judicial pronouncements on his independence are futile. The same is true of his power to withdraw a case with the consent of the court (Section 321). Judges have ruled that he cannot be dictated to by the state. They cannot protect him from dismissal. Only a director of prosecution created by the constitution can.

In the US, the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 empowers the court to appoint an independent prosecutor. Robert S. Mueller III is special prosecutor in the current investigations into charges of Russian meddling in the US presidential election. Even though the independence of the prosecutor existed in Britain prior to 1986, it nonetheless established the Crown Prosecution Service that year under the Prosecution of Offences Act of 1985. In 1924, Sir Patrick Hastings had to resign as attorney-general because he had withdrawn the prosecution of J.C. Campbell, editor of a communist weekly, for political reasons.

 

Finley Peter Dunne, in his classic Mr Dooley’s Opinions, wrote: “No matter whether th’ Constitution follows th’ flag or not, the Supreme Coort (Court) follows the iliction (election) returns.” The Supreme Court’s conduct in the Kissa Kursi Ka case proved the wisdom.

By arrangement with Dawn

Tags: naroda patiya case, narendra modi