Gulberg Society and
Ramlila Maidan episodes
A tale of two amicus curiae
It
is a reality — a sad one — that even in independent India the media is still
not free, still a slave of its own pride, prejudice and arrogance. For it a
thing is not as real as it looks in broad daylight, but as it perceives through
the prism of its own subjectivity tinged in the façade of liberalism,
secularism and, to an extent, permissiveness. The traits of media being free,
fearless, objective, free, fair and fearless remain captive of the written
words in the textbooks of journalism. These do not find place on the pages of
print media and screens of the electronic news channels.
The
latest is the instance of the media hype generated on the opinion of the
Supreme Court (SC) appointed amicus curiae, Mr. Raju Ramachandran’s report on the complaint of Mrs. Zakia
Jafri, the widow of Congress MP Ehsan Jafri who was among 69 people killed at
the Gulberg Society massacre saying "the offences which can be made out against Modi, at this prima
facie stage, are offences inter alia under Sections 153 A (1) (a) & (b) of
IPC, which means promoting enmity among different groups on grounds of religion
and 153 B (1) which says assertions prejudicial to national integration," Further, he added, Mr. Modi "should also be prosecuted under IPC 166,
which says public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any
person and 505 (2) meaning statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or
ill-will," (http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-05-08/news/31626609_1_amicus-post-godhra-riots-gulberg-society)
On the other hand, the report of the
SC-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) after going through all the
records, evidence and arguments for and against had decided to close the case
against Mr. Modi for lack of proof giving him a clean chit.
The media is generating the
impression as if the law, evidence and logic all stand on the side of Mr.
Ramachandran’s opinion and the CBI’s closure report is bereft of all these elements.
Before
we delve deep into the case, it is first necessary to understand what the term
“amicus curiae” means. According to a law dictionary, it is a Latin term for
"friend of the court," a party or an organization interested in an
issue which files a brief or participates in the argument in a case in which
that party or organization is not one of the litigants. As a practice, sometime
courts do appoint certain legal eagles to act as amicus curiae for the court in
specific cases of public importance.
It
is not that the media gives the same amount of credence to every opinion/report
of amicus curiae. It is always subjective and selective. It was not that
generous to what amicus curiae said in the case of midnight swoop on Baba
Ramdev followers at Ramlila Maidan in New Delhi in June 2011 as it is to the
anti-Modi opinion.
Still
more painful is the failure of the media to discern the distinction between the
two cases.
The
amicus curiae report in the Ramlila Maidan case had the stamp of SC which had,
to a great extent, concurred with it. A SC bench of Justice BS Chauhan and
Justice Swantanter Kumar had taken a serious note of the contention by Mr. Rajeev
Dhawan, amicus curiae appointed by the SC that the June 4-5, 2011 crackdown was
pre-planned by the home ministry to derive political benefits. He had also said
that it was upon Chidambaram’s advice that the police intervened.
Mr. Dhawan also said that records, which include Chidambaram’s
interviews at the time, show that the crackdown on the camp had been planned by
the government well in advance. When the crackdown was staged, the yoga teacher
had been in negotiations with senior ministers over how they should recover
black money stashed abroad.
According to Mr Dhawan the documents including a press release
from home minister P Chidambaram’s office on June 8 said, “A decision was taken
that Baba Ramdev would not be allowed to organize any procession or to
undertake any fast at the Ramlila Maidan ground. If he persisted in his efforts
to do so, he will be directed to remove himself from Delhi.”
“This suggests that the decision was taken at the home minister’s
level, but suspended while talks with Ramdev were on... and when talks failed,
the police enforced the decision,” he said while rubbishing the police claim
that it had acted of its own. (http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_baba-ramdev-supreme-court-eye-on-ramlila-swoop-lie_1635593)
In Baba’s case, our media goes by the judgement and ignores the
amicus curiae’s views and went on to give the impression as if Baba too had, to
an extent, been found guilty by the court for what happened on that June
midnight. But in Gulberg Society case the same media ignores the SC-appointed Special
Investigating Team conclusion and highlights only the opinion of amicus curiae.
Regrettably, it is again the same media which is sleeping over the
denial of justice for the past over 27 years to more than 5000 innocent persons
killed in anti-Sikh riots in the aftermath of Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s unfortunate
assassination — almost double the number of persons killed in 2002 Gujarat
riots.
This only betrays media’s
double standards and lack of consistency.
***
