India’s Da Vinci Code Justice

Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi’s role in the 2002 riots has been an emotive issue in India. Conviction of Modi is viewed by his critics as the only form in which justice can be accorded to the victims of Gujarat riots. Modi’s supporters cite his performance as an administrator and development of Gujarat (the Muslim population in particular) as proof of his commitment to public welfare. For the judicial system in India the challenge is compounded because each side has rigid and pre-conceived notions of justice in this case. The legal outcome of this case is expected to have profound political consequences. This context made the Supreme Court’s pronouncements on the case on Monday afternoon particularly interesting.
The Supreme Court has directed the Gujarat trial court to examine the case by referring to reports of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) and the amicus curae’s review of that report. The trial court is then expected to pass a judgement on Narendra Modi’s involvement/ non-involvement in the riots. Though both reports were to be confidential, the SIT report was allegedly leaked in February this year fuelling rumours. According to the leaked SIT report, Modi was given clean chit. SIT’s findings came under cloud as senior IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt, who had accused Mr. Modi of misusing State machinery during the post-Godhra riots, turned the sword on the SIT by emphasizing that someone from within the SIT was leaking sensitive and confidential details related to investigations conducted by it to Additional Advocate General Tushar Mehta. The matter was further complicated as it was alleged that amicus curae, Raju Ramachandran’s report had raised doubts on the SIT Report and hinted at neglect of crucial evidence.
These confusing and contradictory compilations of reports are now to be examined by the trial court for determining the involvement or innocence of Modi in the Gulbarg society massacre. Gulbarg society was a largely Muslim society situated in the middle of Chamanpura – a Hindu majority area in Ahmedabad. On February 28 2002, one day after rioting had begin in Gujarat, eye witnesses say that a Hindu mob had gathered outside the Gulbarg society and begun shouting slogans. As the crowd began to get increasingly aggressive many of the residents sought refuge in the home of Ehsan Jafri, ex-Parliamentarian from Congress Party. Survivor accounts state that Jafri had called for help repeatedly, but nothing was done – even when the mob began attacking the perimeter of the society at around noon. Unchecked, the mob then broke into the society, torched houses and began attacking residents. Ehsan Jafri himself was dragged out of his house, hacked and burnt alive. Another 30 people were declared ‘missing’ after the incident. In 2009, K. G. Erda, a deputy Superintendent was arrested on charges of dereliction of duty and for tampering of evidence. Survivors allege that Erda not only allowed the Gulbarg society killings to happen but also helped rioters to burn the dead bodies.

There is difference between delivering justice and the perception that justice is delivered. During the Gujarat riots, several innocent citizens lost their lives. This had led to shock and concern among other citizens across the country. In a sense, justice in the case was not limited to victims; it was not simply meant to punish those who killed civilians in Gujarat in 2002 but was expected to reinforce confidence among citizens across the country that the state respects and duly enforces the citizens’ right to life. After so many special investigations and confidential reports, after so much debate over desirability of Supreme Court monitoring the case and after so many years, the citizens don’t perceive that justice is delivered. These citizens are not only the direct victims of the riots but the thousands who saw it on their televisions sets and read about it in the newspapers. Citizens are not interested in discerning how Gujarat 2002 was different from Delhi 1984 – they simply want an assurance that no matter which party is in power, the state apparatus will be mobilized to save their lives. Many citizens don’t identify with the Jafri family or inmates of the Gulbarg society, for them justice in Gujarat riots case would be a vindication of their faith in the ability of the state. Who cares about the SIT reports or amicus curae’s interviews in Gujarat; citizens simply want to hear punished or acquitted; punished or acquitted not only in case of Chief Minister Modi but for all those implicated in the case.
India’s judicial system has so complicated the process of delivering justice that it has become incomprehensible for the common man. Supreme Court’s pronouncement on Monday is being hailed by Modi supporters as vindication of his innocence. Tanvir Jafri and Testa Setalvad view it as the victory of those who want to see Modi punished for his crimes. In the midst of such claims and counter claims it is impossible for the common man to discern if justice has been done. Similar confusion ensued after the Babri Masjid decision in October last year. Courts in India rarely make decisions on crucial or controversial cases; what come out from the courts are propositions for interested stakeholders to re-orient according to time and need. It is the Da Vinci code justice in India; de-code as you will. Court decisions add more to confusion rather than to dispensation of justice.